Comprehensive (all data fields) Decision-Based Spreadsheet Report

Board NameWater BodyWBIDWater Body TypeWater Body Sub TypeWater Body CALWNUMSWater Body Reach CodesWater Body WBD CodesWater Body CountiesDecision IDDecision Listing YearPollutantsSourcesFinal Listing DecisionRevision StatusDelist ReasonTMDL Project CodeTMDL Project NameExpected TMDL Completion DateExpected Attainment DateDate TMDL Approved by USEPAImplementation Action Other than TMDLImpairment?Waters Threatened?Poor QA?Not Enough Samples?Decision RelationshipsRegional Board DecisionState Board DecisionUSEPA Action (if applicable)CommentsLOE IDLOE Listing YearStatusAssessor CommentPollutantsBeneficial UsesAquatic Life UsesLOE Sub GroupMatrixFractionNumber of SamplesNumber of ExceedancesData Used to Assess Water QualityData Used to Assess Water Quality ReferencesData and Information TypeCriterion/ObjectiveCriterion/Objective ReferencesEvaluation GuidelineEvaluation Guideline ReferencesSpatial RepresentationTemporal RepresentationEnvironmental ConditionsQuality Assurance InformationQuality Assurance Information References
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial214992012Endosulfan Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under this section when all other delisting factors do not result in the delisting of a water segment but information indicates attainment of standards, a water segment shall be evalauted to determine whether the weight of evidence demonstrates that water quality standard is attained. If the weight of evidence indicates attainment, the water segment shall be removed from the section 303(d) list. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5470 is replaced by the 46599, which is re-assessed based on the current evaluation guideline, and is not use the final use rating. LOE No. 33087 received use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. Four of fish tissue samples exceed the water quality objective, and the exceedances were occurred from 1985 to 1988. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Endosulfan is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1980s and 1990s. However, USEPA has initiated action to end the use of Endosulfan based on the Endosulfan Memorandum of Agreement in 2010. The use of Endosulfan is phasing out, and the registrants of Endosulfan are voluntarily cancelling all existing Endosulfan uses.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management practices (MPs) plays important roles in reducing the compounds. Two USEPA approved TMDLs, Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, are already in place in Imperial County, which requires farmers/growers to implement improved sediment MPs.According to the CA Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR) pesticide use reporting (PUR), the annual use of Endosulfan in Imperial County, where this waterbody is located, is significantly reduced past 20 years. The reported annual Endosulfan uses were 247, 400 pounds in 1990, and the amount reduced to 22 pounds in 2010. Although the use of Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed, which is the major crop produced in the Imperial County, will be ended by July 31, 2016, the farmers in Imperial County have stopped its uses since 2011. No uses of Endosulfan were reported in the PUR in 2011 in the Imperial County.In addition, 10 additional fish tissue samples, which were not included in the current assessment cycle due to data solicitation cutoff date, were collected by the SWAMP and CA Department of Fish and Game (DFG) from 2011 to 2012, and none of the samples exceeded applicable water quality objectives. Data collected also by the SWAMP from 2002-2008, impairment was not observed in 26 water samples. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. Four of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. However, the uses of Endosulfan is phasing out; the farmers have stopped using the Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed since 2011; the last exceedance was occurred on 11/20/1988; and current data, collected from 2011-2012, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   55952010State Reviewed EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal354Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. The fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 4 fish fillet samples from two locations exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. At the Calipatria location the exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 9/30/1987, and; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 11/18/1988. At the International Boundary location, exceedances were found in; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 11/20/1998, and; 1 largemouth bass fillet composite sample collected on 11/15/1985 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 11/15/1985 through 11/20/1998. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial214992012Endosulfan Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under this section when all other delisting factors do not result in the delisting of a water segment but information indicates attainment of standards, a water segment shall be evalauted to determine whether the weight of evidence demonstrates that water quality standard is attained. If the weight of evidence indicates attainment, the water segment shall be removed from the section 303(d) list. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5470 is replaced by the 46599, which is re-assessed based on the current evaluation guideline, and is not use the final use rating. LOE No. 33087 received use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. Four of fish tissue samples exceed the water quality objective, and the exceedances were occurred from 1985 to 1988. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Endosulfan is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1980s and 1990s. However, USEPA has initiated action to end the use of Endosulfan based on the Endosulfan Memorandum of Agreement in 2010. The use of Endosulfan is phasing out, and the registrants of Endosulfan are voluntarily cancelling all existing Endosulfan uses.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management practices (MPs) plays important roles in reducing the compounds. Two USEPA approved TMDLs, Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, are already in place in Imperial County, which requires farmers/growers to implement improved sediment MPs.According to the CA Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR) pesticide use reporting (PUR), the annual use of Endosulfan in Imperial County, where this waterbody is located, is significantly reduced past 20 years. The reported annual Endosulfan uses were 247, 400 pounds in 1990, and the amount reduced to 22 pounds in 2010. Although the use of Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed, which is the major crop produced in the Imperial County, will be ended by July 31, 2016, the farmers in Imperial County have stopped its uses since 2011. No uses of Endosulfan were reported in the PUR in 2011 in the Imperial County.In addition, 10 additional fish tissue samples, which were not included in the current assessment cycle due to data solicitation cutoff date, were collected by the SWAMP and CA Department of Fish and Game (DFG) from 2011 to 2012, and none of the samples exceeded applicable water quality objectives. Data collected also by the SWAMP from 2002-2008, impairment was not observed in 26 water samples. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. Four of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. However, the uses of Endosulfan is phasing out; the farmers have stopped using the Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed since 2011; the last exceedance was occurred on 11/20/1988; and current data, collected from 2011-2012, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   330872012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 24186EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120None of the 12 samples exceeded the criteria.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe endosulfan criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L. This value corresponds to the sum of alpha-endosulfan and beta-endosulfan (USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples were collected at stations 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet) and 723ARINTL (Alamo River at International Boundary).Samples were collected on 10/26/2005, 5/1/2006, 5/7/2007, 10/23/2007, 4/21/2008, and 10/23/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial214992012Endosulfan Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under this section when all other delisting factors do not result in the delisting of a water segment but information indicates attainment of standards, a water segment shall be evalauted to determine whether the weight of evidence demonstrates that water quality standard is attained. If the weight of evidence indicates attainment, the water segment shall be removed from the section 303(d) list. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5470 is replaced by the 46599, which is re-assessed based on the current evaluation guideline, and is not use the final use rating. LOE No. 33087 received use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. Four of fish tissue samples exceed the water quality objective, and the exceedances were occurred from 1985 to 1988. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Endosulfan is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1980s and 1990s. However, USEPA has initiated action to end the use of Endosulfan based on the Endosulfan Memorandum of Agreement in 2010. The use of Endosulfan is phasing out, and the registrants of Endosulfan are voluntarily cancelling all existing Endosulfan uses.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management practices (MPs) plays important roles in reducing the compounds. Two USEPA approved TMDLs, Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, are already in place in Imperial County, which requires farmers/growers to implement improved sediment MPs.According to the CA Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR) pesticide use reporting (PUR), the annual use of Endosulfan in Imperial County, where this waterbody is located, is significantly reduced past 20 years. The reported annual Endosulfan uses were 247, 400 pounds in 1990, and the amount reduced to 22 pounds in 2010. Although the use of Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed, which is the major crop produced in the Imperial County, will be ended by July 31, 2016, the farmers in Imperial County have stopped its uses since 2011. No uses of Endosulfan were reported in the PUR in 2011 in the Imperial County.In addition, 10 additional fish tissue samples, which were not included in the current assessment cycle due to data solicitation cutoff date, were collected by the SWAMP and CA Department of Fish and Game (DFG) from 2011 to 2012, and none of the samples exceeded applicable water quality objectives. Data collected also by the SWAMP from 2002-2008, impairment was not observed in 26 water samples. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. Four of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. However, the uses of Endosulfan is phasing out; the farmers have stopped using the Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed since 2011; the last exceedance was occurred on 11/20/1988; and current data, collected from 2011-2012, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   460222012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671285EndosulfanCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Total endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in fish tissue is 13,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at Drop 6A Holtville Drain - 723ARDP6A, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River/Brawley - 723ARBRAW]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial214992012Endosulfan Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under this section when all other delisting factors do not result in the delisting of a water segment but information indicates attainment of standards, a water segment shall be evalauted to determine whether the weight of evidence demonstrates that water quality standard is attained. If the weight of evidence indicates attainment, the water segment shall be removed from the section 303(d) list. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5470 is replaced by the 46599, which is re-assessed based on the current evaluation guideline, and is not use the final use rating. LOE No. 33087 received use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. Four of fish tissue samples exceed the water quality objective, and the exceedances were occurred from 1985 to 1988. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Endosulfan is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1980s and 1990s. However, USEPA has initiated action to end the use of Endosulfan based on the Endosulfan Memorandum of Agreement in 2010. The use of Endosulfan is phasing out, and the registrants of Endosulfan are voluntarily cancelling all existing Endosulfan uses.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management practices (MPs) plays important roles in reducing the compounds. Two USEPA approved TMDLs, Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, are already in place in Imperial County, which requires farmers/growers to implement improved sediment MPs.According to the CA Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR) pesticide use reporting (PUR), the annual use of Endosulfan in Imperial County, where this waterbody is located, is significantly reduced past 20 years. The reported annual Endosulfan uses were 247, 400 pounds in 1990, and the amount reduced to 22 pounds in 2010. Although the use of Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed, which is the major crop produced in the Imperial County, will be ended by July 31, 2016, the farmers in Imperial County have stopped its uses since 2011. No uses of Endosulfan were reported in the PUR in 2011 in the Imperial County.In addition, 10 additional fish tissue samples, which were not included in the current assessment cycle due to data solicitation cutoff date, were collected by the SWAMP and CA Department of Fish and Game (DFG) from 2011 to 2012, and none of the samples exceeded applicable water quality objectives. Data collected also by the SWAMP from 2002-2008, impairment was not observed in 26 water samples. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. Four of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. However, the uses of Endosulfan is phasing out; the farmers have stopped using the Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed since 2011; the last exceedance was occurred on 11/20/1988; and current data, collected from 2011-2012, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   460232012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671286EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Total endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Endosulfan concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at Drop 6A Holtville Drain - 723ARDP6A, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River/Brawley - 723ARBRAW]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial214992012Endosulfan Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under this section when all other delisting factors do not result in the delisting of a water segment but information indicates attainment of standards, a water segment shall be evalauted to determine whether the weight of evidence demonstrates that water quality standard is attained. If the weight of evidence indicates attainment, the water segment shall be removed from the section 303(d) list. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5470 is replaced by the 46599, which is re-assessed based on the current evaluation guideline, and is not use the final use rating. LOE No. 33087 received use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. Four of fish tissue samples exceed the water quality objective, and the exceedances were occurred from 1985 to 1988. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Endosulfan is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1980s and 1990s. However, USEPA has initiated action to end the use of Endosulfan based on the Endosulfan Memorandum of Agreement in 2010. The use of Endosulfan is phasing out, and the registrants of Endosulfan are voluntarily cancelling all existing Endosulfan uses.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management practices (MPs) plays important roles in reducing the compounds. Two USEPA approved TMDLs, Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, are already in place in Imperial County, which requires farmers/growers to implement improved sediment MPs.According to the CA Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR) pesticide use reporting (PUR), the annual use of Endosulfan in Imperial County, where this waterbody is located, is significantly reduced past 20 years. The reported annual Endosulfan uses were 247, 400 pounds in 1990, and the amount reduced to 22 pounds in 2010. Although the use of Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed, which is the major crop produced in the Imperial County, will be ended by July 31, 2016, the farmers in Imperial County have stopped its uses since 2011. No uses of Endosulfan were reported in the PUR in 2011 in the Imperial County.In addition, 10 additional fish tissue samples, which were not included in the current assessment cycle due to data solicitation cutoff date, were collected by the SWAMP and CA Department of Fish and Game (DFG) from 2011 to 2012, and none of the samples exceeded applicable water quality objectives. Data collected also by the SWAMP from 2002-2008, impairment was not observed in 26 water samples. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. Four of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. However, the uses of Endosulfan is phasing out; the farmers have stopped using the Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed since 2011; the last exceedance was occurred on 11/20/1988; and current data, collected from 2011-2012, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   465992012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) EndosulfanCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal350Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fish samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000.1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in fish tissue is 13,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisSamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Calipatria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial214992012Endosulfan Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under this section when all other delisting factors do not result in the delisting of a water segment but information indicates attainment of standards, a water segment shall be evalauted to determine whether the weight of evidence demonstrates that water quality standard is attained. If the weight of evidence indicates attainment, the water segment shall be removed from the section 303(d) list. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5470 is replaced by the 46599, which is re-assessed based on the current evaluation guideline, and is not use the final use rating. LOE No. 33087 received use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. Four of fish tissue samples exceed the water quality objective, and the exceedances were occurred from 1985 to 1988. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Endosulfan is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1980s and 1990s. However, USEPA has initiated action to end the use of Endosulfan based on the Endosulfan Memorandum of Agreement in 2010. The use of Endosulfan is phasing out, and the registrants of Endosulfan are voluntarily cancelling all existing Endosulfan uses.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management practices (MPs) plays important roles in reducing the compounds. Two USEPA approved TMDLs, Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, are already in place in Imperial County, which requires farmers/growers to implement improved sediment MPs.According to the CA Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR) pesticide use reporting (PUR), the annual use of Endosulfan in Imperial County, where this waterbody is located, is significantly reduced past 20 years. The reported annual Endosulfan uses were 247, 400 pounds in 1990, and the amount reduced to 22 pounds in 2010. Although the use of Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed, which is the major crop produced in the Imperial County, will be ended by July 31, 2016, the farmers in Imperial County have stopped its uses since 2011. No uses of Endosulfan were reported in the PUR in 2011 in the Imperial County.In addition, 10 additional fish tissue samples, which were not included in the current assessment cycle due to data solicitation cutoff date, were collected by the SWAMP and CA Department of Fish and Game (DFG) from 2011 to 2012, and none of the samples exceeded applicable water quality objectives. Data collected also by the SWAMP from 2002-2008, impairment was not observed in 26 water samples. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. Four of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. However, the uses of Endosulfan is phasing out; the farmers have stopped using the Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed since 2011; the last exceedance was occurred on 11/20/1988; and current data, collected from 2011-2012, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   54702010State Reviewed EndosulfanCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal350Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fish samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 20,000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Calipatria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218092012Mercury Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; original basis for listing was incorrect      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under this section when all other delisting factors do not result in the delisting of a water segment but information indicates attainment of standards, a water segment shall be evaluated to determine whether the weight of evidence demonstrates that water quality standard is attained. If the weight of evidence indicates attainment, the water segment shall be removed from the section 303(d) list.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2899 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information in previous assessment cyle because all samples results were below the reporint limit and the reporting limit was greater than the evaluation guideline. According to Section 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy when the sample value is less than the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is greater than the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the result shall not be used in the analysis. LOE No. 5562 is replaced by LOE No. 46622, which is re-assessed based on the current evaluation guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. Seventeen of samples exceed the water quality objective, and all of these exceedances were occurred from 1979 to 1991. On June 8, 1999, USEPA promulgated Method 1631, Revision B for use in determination of mercury at parts per trillion (ppt) levels in water. Method 1631 improved accuracy and precision at low levels, and allowed to determine mercury at 0.5 ng/l level. Since the application of the Method 1631 into analysis, water samples collected by the SWAMP from 2002 to 2012 in this waterbody did not show any exceedances of mercury. The concentration of mercury varied from 0.8 to 1.6 ng/l, while the applicable water quality objective from California Toxics Rule (CTR) is at 51 ng/l. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. Seventeen of 53 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All 17 exceedances were occurred from 1979 to 1991. Since 1999, a new analysis method was applied, and current data collected from 2002-2012, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   52032010State Reviewed MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved1717Forty-seven water samples were taken at 1 location on the river. Thirty water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 17 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 10/1979 through 9/1991. Of these total samples, 17 exceeded the CTR Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 10/23/1979 through 9/24/1991 at Drop 3 Near Calipatria, CA (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) criteria of 0.051 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca.Forty-seven samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 7/1979 through 9/1991. Two samples were collected in 1979, 38 samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 7 samples were collected from 1990-1999. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 10/23/1979 through 9/24/1991. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218092012Mercury Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; original basis for listing was incorrect      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under this section when all other delisting factors do not result in the delisting of a water segment but information indicates attainment of standards, a water segment shall be evaluated to determine whether the weight of evidence demonstrates that water quality standard is attained. If the weight of evidence indicates attainment, the water segment shall be removed from the section 303(d) list.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2899 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information in previous assessment cyle because all samples results were below the reporint limit and the reporting limit was greater than the evaluation guideline. According to Section 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy when the sample value is less than the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is greater than the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the result shall not be used in the analysis. LOE No. 5562 is replaced by LOE No. 46622, which is re-assessed based on the current evaluation guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. Seventeen of samples exceed the water quality objective, and all of these exceedances were occurred from 1979 to 1991. On June 8, 1999, USEPA promulgated Method 1631, Revision B for use in determination of mercury at parts per trillion (ppt) levels in water. Method 1631 improved accuracy and precision at low levels, and allowed to determine mercury at 0.5 ng/l level. Since the application of the Method 1631 into analysis, water samples collected by the SWAMP from 2002 to 2012 in this waterbody did not show any exceedances of mercury. The concentration of mercury varied from 0.8 to 1.6 ng/l, while the applicable water quality objective from California Toxics Rule (CTR) is at 51 ng/l. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. Seventeen of 53 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All 17 exceedances were occurred from 1979 to 1991. Since 1999, a new analysis method was applied, and current data collected from 2002-2012, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   51912010State Reviewed MercuryWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved471Forty-seven water quality samples were taken at 1 location along the river, generally collected from 7/1979 through 9/1991. Of these total samples , 1 exceeded the NRWQC Criteria. The exceedance was found in a sample collected on 10/23/1979 (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataNational Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.4 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2002).1.National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca.Forty-seven samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 7/1979 through 9/1991. Two samples were collected in 1979, 38 samples were collected from 1980-1989, 7 samples were collected from 1990-1999. The exceedance was from a sample collected on 10/23/1979. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218092012Mercury Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; original basis for listing was incorrect      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under this section when all other delisting factors do not result in the delisting of a water segment but information indicates attainment of standards, a water segment shall be evaluated to determine whether the weight of evidence demonstrates that water quality standard is attained. If the weight of evidence indicates attainment, the water segment shall be removed from the section 303(d) list.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2899 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information in previous assessment cyle because all samples results were below the reporint limit and the reporting limit was greater than the evaluation guideline. According to Section 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy when the sample value is less than the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is greater than the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the result shall not be used in the analysis. LOE No. 5562 is replaced by LOE No. 46622, which is re-assessed based on the current evaluation guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. Seventeen of samples exceed the water quality objective, and all of these exceedances were occurred from 1979 to 1991. On June 8, 1999, USEPA promulgated Method 1631, Revision B for use in determination of mercury at parts per trillion (ppt) levels in water. Method 1631 improved accuracy and precision at low levels, and allowed to determine mercury at 0.5 ng/l level. Since the application of the Method 1631 into analysis, water samples collected by the SWAMP from 2002 to 2012 in this waterbody did not show any exceedances of mercury. The concentration of mercury varied from 0.8 to 1.6 ng/l, while the applicable water quality objective from California Toxics Rule (CTR) is at 51 ng/l. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. Seventeen of 53 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All 17 exceedances were occurred from 1979 to 1991. Since 1999, a new analysis method was applied, and current data collected from 2002-2012, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   51062010State Reviewed Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal130Thirteen sediment quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.Thirteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218092012Mercury Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; original basis for listing was incorrect      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under this section when all other delisting factors do not result in the delisting of a water segment but information indicates attainment of standards, a water segment shall be evaluated to determine whether the weight of evidence demonstrates that water quality standard is attained. If the weight of evidence indicates attainment, the water segment shall be removed from the section 303(d) list.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2899 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information in previous assessment cyle because all samples results were below the reporint limit and the reporting limit was greater than the evaluation guideline. According to Section 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy when the sample value is less than the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is greater than the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the result shall not be used in the analysis. LOE No. 5562 is replaced by LOE No. 46622, which is re-assessed based on the current evaluation guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. Seventeen of samples exceed the water quality objective, and all of these exceedances were occurred from 1979 to 1991. On June 8, 1999, USEPA promulgated Method 1631, Revision B for use in determination of mercury at parts per trillion (ppt) levels in water. Method 1631 improved accuracy and precision at low levels, and allowed to determine mercury at 0.5 ng/l level. Since the application of the Method 1631 into analysis, water samples collected by the SWAMP from 2002 to 2012 in this waterbody did not show any exceedances of mercury. The concentration of mercury varied from 0.8 to 1.6 ng/l, while the applicable water quality objective from California Toxics Rule (CTR) is at 51 ng/l. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. Seventeen of 53 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All 17 exceedances were occurred from 1979 to 1991. Since 1999, a new analysis method was applied, and current data collected from 2002-2012, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   50082010State Reviewed Mercury | NickelCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved240Twenty-four water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.051 ug/l Mercury, and 4600 ug/l Nickel (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, Drop 8, Drop 6A, Drop 6, Drop 3, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Twenty-four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218092012Mercury Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; original basis for listing was incorrect      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under this section when all other delisting factors do not result in the delisting of a water segment but information indicates attainment of standards, a water segment shall be evaluated to determine whether the weight of evidence demonstrates that water quality standard is attained. If the weight of evidence indicates attainment, the water segment shall be removed from the section 303(d) list.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2899 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information in previous assessment cyle because all samples results were below the reporint limit and the reporting limit was greater than the evaluation guideline. According to Section 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy when the sample value is less than the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is greater than the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the result shall not be used in the analysis. LOE No. 5562 is replaced by LOE No. 46622, which is re-assessed based on the current evaluation guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. Seventeen of samples exceed the water quality objective, and all of these exceedances were occurred from 1979 to 1991. On June 8, 1999, USEPA promulgated Method 1631, Revision B for use in determination of mercury at parts per trillion (ppt) levels in water. Method 1631 improved accuracy and precision at low levels, and allowed to determine mercury at 0.5 ng/l level. Since the application of the Method 1631 into analysis, water samples collected by the SWAMP from 2002 to 2012 in this waterbody did not show any exceedances of mercury. The concentration of mercury varied from 0.8 to 1.6 ng/l, while the applicable water quality objective from California Toxics Rule (CTR) is at 51 ng/l. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. Seventeen of 53 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All 17 exceedances were occurred from 1979 to 1991. Since 1999, a new analysis method was applied, and current data collected from 2002-2012, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   28992006State ReviewedNJK: Even though there are no exceedences, these data are insufficient in determining use support because the reporting limit is above the criterion. Therefore the use support rating would be insufficient information.MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterNone70Data were collected by the RWQCB on 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. Of the 7 samples, all samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of the criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUSEPA: 50 ng/L for consumption of water and organisms or organisms only. The reporting limit is 1 ug/l, which is greater than the criterion.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: AR-B (at the International Boundary), AR-D10 (Lower Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #10), AR-D8 (Central Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #8), AR-D6A (Holtville Main Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6A), AR-D6 (Rose Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6), AR-D3 (Central Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #3), and at AR-GRB.All samples were collected on 6/21/2001. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218092012Mercury Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; original basis for listing was incorrect      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under this section when all other delisting factors do not result in the delisting of a water segment but information indicates attainment of standards, a water segment shall be evaluated to determine whether the weight of evidence demonstrates that water quality standard is attained. If the weight of evidence indicates attainment, the water segment shall be removed from the section 303(d) list.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2899 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information in previous assessment cyle because all samples results were below the reporint limit and the reporting limit was greater than the evaluation guideline. According to Section 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy when the sample value is less than the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is greater than the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the result shall not be used in the analysis. LOE No. 5562 is replaced by LOE No. 46622, which is re-assessed based on the current evaluation guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. Seventeen of samples exceed the water quality objective, and all of these exceedances were occurred from 1979 to 1991. On June 8, 1999, USEPA promulgated Method 1631, Revision B for use in determination of mercury at parts per trillion (ppt) levels in water. Method 1631 improved accuracy and precision at low levels, and allowed to determine mercury at 0.5 ng/l level. Since the application of the Method 1631 into analysis, water samples collected by the SWAMP from 2002 to 2012 in this waterbody did not show any exceedances of mercury. The concentration of mercury varied from 0.8 to 1.6 ng/l, while the applicable water quality objective from California Toxics Rule (CTR) is at 51 ng/l. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. Seventeen of 53 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All 17 exceedances were occurred from 1979 to 1991. Since 1999, a new analysis method was applied, and current data collected from 2002-2012, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   55622010State Reviewed MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal150Twenty-one fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Seven fish fillet and 3 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the samples were not analyzed for the analyte. The 14 fish fillet samples and 1 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 5/1981 through 11/2000 at four locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 0.3 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the Alamo River at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Seven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-82, 1987-88, 1990, (2)1993. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1994, and 2000. Ten channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-82, 1987, 1993, 1996-98. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1994. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Four whole fish composite samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia, mosquitofish, and red shiner were collected. One red swamp crayfish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1980. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One red shiner whole fish composite was collected in the year 1985. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218092012Mercury Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; original basis for listing was incorrect      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under this section when all other delisting factors do not result in the delisting of a water segment but information indicates attainment of standards, a water segment shall be evaluated to determine whether the weight of evidence demonstrates that water quality standard is attained. If the weight of evidence indicates attainment, the water segment shall be removed from the section 303(d) list.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2899 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information in previous assessment cyle because all samples results were below the reporint limit and the reporting limit was greater than the evaluation guideline. According to Section 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy when the sample value is less than the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is greater than the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the result shall not be used in the analysis. LOE No. 5562 is replaced by LOE No. 46622, which is re-assessed based on the current evaluation guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. Seventeen of samples exceed the water quality objective, and all of these exceedances were occurred from 1979 to 1991. On June 8, 1999, USEPA promulgated Method 1631, Revision B for use in determination of mercury at parts per trillion (ppt) levels in water. Method 1631 improved accuracy and precision at low levels, and allowed to determine mercury at 0.5 ng/l level. Since the application of the Method 1631 into analysis, water samples collected by the SWAMP from 2002 to 2012 in this waterbody did not show any exceedances of mercury. The concentration of mercury varied from 0.8 to 1.6 ng/l, while the applicable water quality objective from California Toxics Rule (CTR) is at 51 ng/l. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. Seventeen of 53 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All 17 exceedances were occurred from 1979 to 1991. Since 1999, a new analysis method was applied, and current data collected from 2002-2012, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   266702010State Reviewed MercuryWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved240Twenty-four water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NRWQC Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.4 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2002).1.National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, Drop 8, Drop 6A, Drop 6, Drop 3, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Twenty-four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218092012Mercury Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; original basis for listing was incorrect      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under this section when all other delisting factors do not result in the delisting of a water segment but information indicates attainment of standards, a water segment shall be evaluated to determine whether the weight of evidence demonstrates that water quality standard is attained. If the weight of evidence indicates attainment, the water segment shall be removed from the section 303(d) list.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2899 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information in previous assessment cyle because all samples results were below the reporint limit and the reporting limit was greater than the evaluation guideline. According to Section 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy when the sample value is less than the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is greater than the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the result shall not be used in the analysis. LOE No. 5562 is replaced by LOE No. 46622, which is re-assessed based on the current evaluation guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. Seventeen of samples exceed the water quality objective, and all of these exceedances were occurred from 1979 to 1991. On June 8, 1999, USEPA promulgated Method 1631, Revision B for use in determination of mercury at parts per trillion (ppt) levels in water. Method 1631 improved accuracy and precision at low levels, and allowed to determine mercury at 0.5 ng/l level. Since the application of the Method 1631 into analysis, water samples collected by the SWAMP from 2002 to 2012 in this waterbody did not show any exceedances of mercury. The concentration of mercury varied from 0.8 to 1.6 ng/l, while the applicable water quality objective from California Toxics Rule (CTR) is at 51 ng/l. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. Seventeen of 53 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All 17 exceedances were occurred from 1979 to 1991. Since 1999, a new analysis method was applied, and current data collected from 2002-2012, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   356302012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167980MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Mercury criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.051 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218092012Mercury Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; original basis for listing was incorrect      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under this section when all other delisting factors do not result in the delisting of a water segment but information indicates attainment of standards, a water segment shall be evaluated to determine whether the weight of evidence demonstrates that water quality standard is attained. If the weight of evidence indicates attainment, the water segment shall be removed from the section 303(d) list.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2899 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information in previous assessment cyle because all samples results were below the reporint limit and the reporting limit was greater than the evaluation guideline. According to Section 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy when the sample value is less than the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is greater than the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the result shall not be used in the analysis. LOE No. 5562 is replaced by LOE No. 46622, which is re-assessed based on the current evaluation guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. Seventeen of samples exceed the water quality objective, and all of these exceedances were occurred from 1979 to 1991. On June 8, 1999, USEPA promulgated Method 1631, Revision B for use in determination of mercury at parts per trillion (ppt) levels in water. Method 1631 improved accuracy and precision at low levels, and allowed to determine mercury at 0.5 ng/l level. Since the application of the Method 1631 into analysis, water samples collected by the SWAMP from 2002 to 2012 in this waterbody did not show any exceedances of mercury. The concentration of mercury varied from 0.8 to 1.6 ng/l, while the applicable water quality objective from California Toxics Rule (CTR) is at 51 ng/l. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. Seventeen of 53 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All 17 exceedances were occurred from 1979 to 1991. Since 1999, a new analysis method was applied, and current data collected from 2002-2012, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   356562012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167991MercuryWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for mercury is 1.06 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218092012Mercury Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; original basis for listing was incorrect      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under this section when all other delisting factors do not result in the delisting of a water segment but information indicates attainment of standards, a water segment shall be evaluated to determine whether the weight of evidence demonstrates that water quality standard is attained. If the weight of evidence indicates attainment, the water segment shall be removed from the section 303(d) list.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2899 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information in previous assessment cyle because all samples results were below the reporint limit and the reporting limit was greater than the evaluation guideline. According to Section 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy when the sample value is less than the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is greater than the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the result shall not be used in the analysis. LOE No. 5562 is replaced by LOE No. 46622, which is re-assessed based on the current evaluation guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. Seventeen of samples exceed the water quality objective, and all of these exceedances were occurred from 1979 to 1991. On June 8, 1999, USEPA promulgated Method 1631, Revision B for use in determination of mercury at parts per trillion (ppt) levels in water. Method 1631 improved accuracy and precision at low levels, and allowed to determine mercury at 0.5 ng/l level. Since the application of the Method 1631 into analysis, water samples collected by the SWAMP from 2002 to 2012 in this waterbody did not show any exceedances of mercury. The concentration of mercury varied from 0.8 to 1.6 ng/l, while the applicable water quality objective from California Toxics Rule (CTR) is at 51 ng/l. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. Seventeen of 53 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All 17 exceedances were occurred from 1979 to 1991. Since 1999, a new analysis method was applied, and current data collected from 2002-2012, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   358922012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168307MercuryWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for mercury is 1.06 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218092012Mercury Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; original basis for listing was incorrect      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under this section when all other delisting factors do not result in the delisting of a water segment but information indicates attainment of standards, a water segment shall be evaluated to determine whether the weight of evidence demonstrates that water quality standard is attained. If the weight of evidence indicates attainment, the water segment shall be removed from the section 303(d) list.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2899 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information in previous assessment cyle because all samples results were below the reporint limit and the reporting limit was greater than the evaluation guideline. According to Section 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy when the sample value is less than the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is greater than the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the result shall not be used in the analysis. LOE No. 5562 is replaced by LOE No. 46622, which is re-assessed based on the current evaluation guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. Seventeen of samples exceed the water quality objective, and all of these exceedances were occurred from 1979 to 1991. On June 8, 1999, USEPA promulgated Method 1631, Revision B for use in determination of mercury at parts per trillion (ppt) levels in water. Method 1631 improved accuracy and precision at low levels, and allowed to determine mercury at 0.5 ng/l level. Since the application of the Method 1631 into analysis, water samples collected by the SWAMP from 2002 to 2012 in this waterbody did not show any exceedances of mercury. The concentration of mercury varied from 0.8 to 1.6 ng/l, while the applicable water quality objective from California Toxics Rule (CTR) is at 51 ng/l. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. Seventeen of 53 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All 17 exceedances were occurred from 1979 to 1991. Since 1999, a new analysis method was applied, and current data collected from 2002-2012, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   466222012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet120The 12 fish fillet samples were generally collected from 5/1981 through 11/2000 at four locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentratin sof methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish. This is the same dataset used for LOE No. 5562, and three of data used in the LOE no. 5562 did not meet the current evalution guideline, such as off-size range and/or not trophic level 4 fish. Thuse only 12 fish fillet samples were accepted for this assessment. Compositses were generaged from two species: channel catfish and carp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish (150 - 500 mm; fillet wet weight) is 0.20 mg/kg.1.Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001Samples were collected from the Alamo River at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Data was collected over the time period 6/21/1978-10/27/1994 The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218092012Mercury Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; original basis for listing was incorrect      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under this section when all other delisting factors do not result in the delisting of a water segment but information indicates attainment of standards, a water segment shall be evaluated to determine whether the weight of evidence demonstrates that water quality standard is attained. If the weight of evidence indicates attainment, the water segment shall be removed from the section 303(d) list.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2899 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information in previous assessment cyle because all samples results were below the reporint limit and the reporting limit was greater than the evaluation guideline. According to Section 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy when the sample value is less than the quantitation limit and the quantitation limit is greater than the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the result shall not be used in the analysis. LOE No. 5562 is replaced by LOE No. 46622, which is re-assessed based on the current evaluation guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. Seventeen of samples exceed the water quality objective, and all of these exceedances were occurred from 1979 to 1991. On June 8, 1999, USEPA promulgated Method 1631, Revision B for use in determination of mercury at parts per trillion (ppt) levels in water. Method 1631 improved accuracy and precision at low levels, and allowed to determine mercury at 0.5 ng/l level. Since the application of the Method 1631 into analysis, water samples collected by the SWAMP from 2002 to 2012 in this waterbody did not show any exceedances of mercury. The concentration of mercury varied from 0.8 to 1.6 ng/l, while the applicable water quality objective from California Toxics Rule (CTR) is at 51 ng/l. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. Seventeen of 53 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All 17 exceedances were occurred from 1979 to 1991. Since 1999, a new analysis method was applied, and current data collected from 2002-2012, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   460502012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671295MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish (150 - 500 mm; fillet wet weight) is 0.20 mg/kg.1.Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at Drop 6A Holtville Drain - 723ARDP6A, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River/Brawley - 723ARBRAW]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River (Imperial Reservoir to California-Mexico Border)CAR7270000020050815175128River & Stream 10727.00000015030107000002,15030107000578,15030107000700,15030107000719,15030107000819,15030107000826,15030107000833,15030107000834,15030107001098,15030107001229,(Total Count: 11)150301041311,150301070101,150301070105,150301070107Imperial203652012Selenium Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; due to change in WQS      YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeded the water quality objective. In previous assessement cycle, prior to 2006, this database was assessed based on screening value of 2 mg/kg. Since the new OEHHA guideline, 2008, for selenium was used for current assessment cycle, the LOE 2968 was replaced by LOE 46528, which was assessed based on the new guideline. The LOE 46528 received use rating of insufficient information because the minimum sample size required by the Listing Policy to assess this water body for selenium is not met in this dataset. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five samples exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenuium and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   465282012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal50None of 5 samples exceeded (TSMP, 2002). A total of five filet samples of largemouth bass were collected. Bass were collected in 1992, 1999, and 2001-02. Bass exceeded the guidelines in 1999 and 2001-02.1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program data for years 1992-2002 and Coastal Fish Contamination Program for years 1 and 2. State Water Resources Control Board 2.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.Not SpecifiedColorado River Basin RWQCB Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combinationof chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goals(FCGs) 7.4 mg/kg1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneTwo stations were sampled: about 2 miles downstream of the Needles Marina Resort and from Squaw Lake boat launch ramp to 1/4 mile notrh of Senator Lake.Samples were collected annuallly in 1992, 1999 and 2001-02. Toxic Sustances Monitoring Program 1992-1993 Data Report.Environmental Chemistry Qaulity Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 1996=2000. Department of Fish and Game.Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 2001-2002. Department of Fish and Game. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River (Imperial Reservoir to California-Mexico Border)CAR7270000020050815175128River & Stream 10727.00000015030107000002,15030107000578,15030107000700,15030107000719,15030107000819,15030107000826,15030107000833,15030107000834,15030107001098,15030107001229,(Total Count: 11)150301041311,150301070101,150301070105,150301070107Imperial203652012Selenium Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; due to change in WQS      YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeded the water quality objective. In previous assessement cycle, prior to 2006, this database was assessed based on screening value of 2 mg/kg. Since the new OEHHA guideline, 2008, for selenium was used for current assessment cycle, the LOE 2968 was replaced by LOE 46528, which was assessed based on the new guideline. The LOE 46528 received use rating of insufficient information because the minimum sample size required by the Listing Policy to assess this water body for selenium is not met in this dataset. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five samples exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenuium and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   29682006State Reviewed SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal53Three out of 5 samples exceeded (TSMP, 2002). A total of 5 filet samples of largemouth bass were collected. Bass were collected in 1992, 1999, and 2001-02. Bass exceeded the guideline in 1999 and 2001-02.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedColorado River Basin RWQCB Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)OEHHA Screening Value 2 ug/g.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Two stations were sampled: about 2 miles downstream of the Needles Marina Resort and from Squaw Lake boat launch ramp to 1/4 mile north of Senator Lake.Samples were collected annually in 1992, 1999 and 2001-02. Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1992-93 Data Report.Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 1996-2000. Department of Fish and Game.Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 2001-2002. Department of Fish and Game. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial189662012Endosulfan Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under this section when all other delisting factors do not result in the delisting of a water segment but information indicates attainment of standards, a water segment shall be evaluated to determine whether the weight of evidence demonstrates that water quality standard is attained. If the weight of evidence indicates attainment, the water segment shall be removed from the section 303(d) list.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 46183 is combined with LOE No. 5607 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Ten of samples exceed the water quality objective, and the exceedances were occurred from 1985 to 1996.Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Endosulfan is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1980s and 1990s. However, USEPA has initiated action to end the use of Endosulfan based on the Endosulfan Memorandum of Agreement in 2010. The use of Endosulfan is phasing out, and the registrants of Endosulfan are voluntarily cancelling all existing Endosulfan uses.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management practices (MPs) plays important roles in reducing the compounds. A USEPA approved TMDL, Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, is already in place in Imperial County, which requires farmers/growers to implement improved sediment MPs.According to the CA Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR) pesticide use reporting (PUR), the annual use of Endosulfan in Imperial County, where this waterbody is located, is significantly reduced past 20 years. The reported annual Endosulfan uses were 247, 400 pounds in 1990, and the amount reduced to 22 pounds in 2010. Although the use of Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed, which is the major crop produced in the Imperial County, will be ended by July 31, 2016, the farmers in Imperial County have stopped its uses since 2011. No uses of Endosulfan were reported in the PUR in 2011 in the Imperial County.In addition, seven additional fish tissue samples, which were not included in the current assessment cycle due to data solicitation cutoff date, were collected by the SWAMP and CA Department of Fish and Game (DFG) in 2011, and none of the samples exceeded applicable water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. Ten of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. However, the uses of Endosulfan is phasing out; the farmers have stopped using the Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed since 2011; the last exceedance was occurred on 11/3/1996; and more recent data, collected from 1999-2011, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   56072010State Reviewed EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal4010Twenty-one fish fillet samples and nineteen whole fish samples were taken at 14 locations in Imperial Valley drains. The fish samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 6 fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples collected at 6 locations exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. At Rose drain exceedances were found in 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 11/17/1998, and 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 8/17/1991. At South Central drain an exceedance was found in 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 8/01/1990. At Rice drain 3 exceedances were found in 2 carp fillet composite samples collected on 10/10/1985, and 10/15/1986. At Pumice drain exceedances were found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 11/20/1990, and 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 11/20/1990. At Mayflower drain an exceedance was found in 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 8/16/19991. At Peach drain exceedences were found in 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 11/03/1996, and 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 9/17/1992 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Rice drain 3, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach Drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, and Warren drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, tilapia, flathead catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle, redbelly tilapia, and yellow bullhead were collected. Eight carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1985, 1986, 1988, (3)1990, and 1999. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989-90. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. One flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. One yellow bullhead fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Nineteen whole fish samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Twelve mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in 1985, 1989, (2)1990, (3)1991, 1995-96, and (3)2000. Seven sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, (2)2000. Exceedances were found in samples collected from 10/10/1985 through 11/17/1998. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial189662012Endosulfan Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under this section when all other delisting factors do not result in the delisting of a water segment but information indicates attainment of standards, a water segment shall be evaluated to determine whether the weight of evidence demonstrates that water quality standard is attained. If the weight of evidence indicates attainment, the water segment shall be removed from the section 303(d) list.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 46183 is combined with LOE No. 5607 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Ten of samples exceed the water quality objective, and the exceedances were occurred from 1985 to 1996.Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Endosulfan is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1980s and 1990s. However, USEPA has initiated action to end the use of Endosulfan based on the Endosulfan Memorandum of Agreement in 2010. The use of Endosulfan is phasing out, and the registrants of Endosulfan are voluntarily cancelling all existing Endosulfan uses.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management practices (MPs) plays important roles in reducing the compounds. A USEPA approved TMDL, Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, is already in place in Imperial County, which requires farmers/growers to implement improved sediment MPs.According to the CA Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR) pesticide use reporting (PUR), the annual use of Endosulfan in Imperial County, where this waterbody is located, is significantly reduced past 20 years. The reported annual Endosulfan uses were 247, 400 pounds in 1990, and the amount reduced to 22 pounds in 2010. Although the use of Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed, which is the major crop produced in the Imperial County, will be ended by July 31, 2016, the farmers in Imperial County have stopped its uses since 2011. No uses of Endosulfan were reported in the PUR in 2011 in the Imperial County.In addition, seven additional fish tissue samples, which were not included in the current assessment cycle due to data solicitation cutoff date, were collected by the SWAMP and CA Department of Fish and Game (DFG) in 2011, and none of the samples exceeded applicable water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. Ten of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. However, the uses of Endosulfan is phasing out; the farmers have stopped using the Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed since 2011; the last exceedance was occurred on 11/3/1996; and more recent data, collected from 1999-2011, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   461832012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671437EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. Eleven composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Total endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Endosulfan concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial189662012Endosulfan Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under this section when all other delisting factors do not result in the delisting of a water segment but information indicates attainment of standards, a water segment shall be evaluated to determine whether the weight of evidence demonstrates that water quality standard is attained. If the weight of evidence indicates attainment, the water segment shall be removed from the section 303(d) list.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 46183 is combined with LOE No. 5607 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Ten of samples exceed the water quality objective, and the exceedances were occurred from 1985 to 1996.Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Endosulfan is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1980s and 1990s. However, USEPA has initiated action to end the use of Endosulfan based on the Endosulfan Memorandum of Agreement in 2010. The use of Endosulfan is phasing out, and the registrants of Endosulfan are voluntarily cancelling all existing Endosulfan uses.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management practices (MPs) plays important roles in reducing the compounds. A USEPA approved TMDL, Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, is already in place in Imperial County, which requires farmers/growers to implement improved sediment MPs.According to the CA Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR) pesticide use reporting (PUR), the annual use of Endosulfan in Imperial County, where this waterbody is located, is significantly reduced past 20 years. The reported annual Endosulfan uses were 247, 400 pounds in 1990, and the amount reduced to 22 pounds in 2010. Although the use of Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed, which is the major crop produced in the Imperial County, will be ended by July 31, 2016, the farmers in Imperial County have stopped its uses since 2011. No uses of Endosulfan were reported in the PUR in 2011 in the Imperial County.In addition, seven additional fish tissue samples, which were not included in the current assessment cycle due to data solicitation cutoff date, were collected by the SWAMP and CA Department of Fish and Game (DFG) in 2011, and none of the samples exceeded applicable water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. Ten of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. However, the uses of Endosulfan is phasing out; the farmers have stopped using the Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed since 2011; the last exceedance was occurred on 11/3/1996; and more recent data, collected from 1999-2011, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   461822012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671436EndosulfanCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. Eleven composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Total endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in fish tissue is 13,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial189662012Endosulfan Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Under this section when all other delisting factors do not result in the delisting of a water segment but information indicates attainment of standards, a water segment shall be evaluated to determine whether the weight of evidence demonstrates that water quality standard is attained. If the weight of evidence indicates attainment, the water segment shall be removed from the section 303(d) list.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 46183 is combined with LOE No. 5607 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Ten of samples exceed the water quality objective, and the exceedances were occurred from 1985 to 1996.Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Endosulfan is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1980s and 1990s. However, USEPA has initiated action to end the use of Endosulfan based on the Endosulfan Memorandum of Agreement in 2010. The use of Endosulfan is phasing out, and the registrants of Endosulfan are voluntarily cancelling all existing Endosulfan uses.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management practices (MPs) plays important roles in reducing the compounds. A USEPA approved TMDL, Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, is already in place in Imperial County, which requires farmers/growers to implement improved sediment MPs.According to the CA Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR) pesticide use reporting (PUR), the annual use of Endosulfan in Imperial County, where this waterbody is located, is significantly reduced past 20 years. The reported annual Endosulfan uses were 247, 400 pounds in 1990, and the amount reduced to 22 pounds in 2010. Although the use of Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed, which is the major crop produced in the Imperial County, will be ended by July 31, 2016, the farmers in Imperial County have stopped its uses since 2011. No uses of Endosulfan were reported in the PUR in 2011 in the Imperial County.In addition, seven additional fish tissue samples, which were not included in the current assessment cycle due to data solicitation cutoff date, were collected by the SWAMP and CA Department of Fish and Game (DFG) in 2011, and none of the samples exceeded applicable water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. Ten of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. However, the uses of Endosulfan is phasing out; the farmers have stopped using the Endosulfan for Alfalfa seed since 2011; the last exceedance was occurred on 11/3/1996; and more recent data, collected from 1999-2011, indicates that the water quality standard is attained.3. This process is scientifically defensible and reproducible.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   55332010State Reviewed EndosulfanCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal400Twenty-one fish fillet samples and nineteen whole fish samples were taken at 14 locations in Imperial Valley drains. The fish samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value. (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 20,000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Rice drain 3, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach Drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, and Warren drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, tilapia, flathead catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle, redbelly tilapia, and yellow bullhead were collected. Eight carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1985, 1986, 1988, (3)1990, and 1999. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989-90. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. One flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. One yellow bullhead fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Nineteen whole fish samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Twelve mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in 1985, 1989, (2)1990, (3)1991, 1995-96, and (3)2000. Seven sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, (2)2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2021820121,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalOther      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. The New River was originally listed in 2002. Line of Evidence No. 4665 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26874 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4665 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. Potential sources of 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to verify the original Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- trimethylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters that meets the requirements of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298362010State Reviewed 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | Bromobenzene | Cumene | n-Butylbenzene | n-Propylbenzene | sec-Butylbenzene | tert-ButylbenzeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved15 Fifteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 4 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. An extra sample was collected from the International Boundary location in July of 2003. At Even Hewes and Drop 2 samples were collected in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2021820121,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalOther      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. The New River was originally listed in 2002. Line of Evidence No. 4665 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26874 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4665 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. Potential sources of 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to verify the original Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- trimethylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters that meets the requirements of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   269282010State Reviewed 1,2,4-TrimethylbenzeneWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved39 Thirty-nine water samples were collected from 12/2004 through 9/2005 at 7 locations in the river (CRBRWQCB, 2009).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and from the New River VOC TMDL Development Monitoring Program in January 2009.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- trimethylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA, where the All-American Canal crosses over the river, where Highway 98 crosses over the river, where Lyons Road crosses over the river, where Even Hewes Highway crosses over the river, at Drop 2, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Thirty-nine water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 12/2004 through 9/2005. Samples were collected every month from the International Boundary in Calexico, CA, and where Even Hewes Highway crosses over the river. Samples were collected from where the All-American Canal crosses over the river, where Highway 98 crosses over the river, and where Lyons Road crosses over the river in 1/2005, 2/2005, 7/2005, and 9/2005. Samples were collected from Drop 2, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea in 12/2004, 8/2005, and 9/2005. An extra sample was collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea in 7/2005. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRRWQCB, 2004).1.Quality Assurance Project Plan for sampling volatile organic compounds in the New River for TMDL Development. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2021820121,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalOther      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. The New River was originally listed in 2002. Line of Evidence No. 4665 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26874 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4665 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. Potential sources of 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to verify the original Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- trimethylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters that meets the requirements of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   268742010State Reviewed 1,2,4-TrimethylbenzeneWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved370 Three hundred and seventy water samples were collected from 1/1997 through 1/2007 at 1 location in the river (CRBRWQCB, 2009).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and from the New River VOC TMDL Development Monitoring Program in January 2009.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- trimethylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Three hundred and seventy water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 1/1997 through 1/2007. Samples were not collected in the months 10/1999-1/2000, 3/2005, 7/2005, 9/2005, 10/2005, 7/2006-10/2006. In general two water samples were collected three hours apart once a month, except for 12/2005 and 6/2006 when only one sample was collected. Every third or fourth month (quarterly), eight samples were collected once every three hours over a twenty-four hour period. This lasted from 1/1997 through until 10/2003. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2021820121,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalOther      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. The New River was originally listed in 2002. Line of Evidence No. 4665 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26874 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4665 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. Potential sources of 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to verify the original Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- trimethylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters that meets the requirements of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   213812010State Reviewed 1,2,4-TrimethylbenzeneWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved21 Twenty-one water samples were collected from 10/2007 through 9/2008 at 1 location in the river (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- trimethylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Twenty-one water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 10/2007 through 9/2008. Samples were not collected in 12/2007. Two samples were collected once a month except for 3/2008 and 9/2008. Only one sample was collected in those months. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2021820121,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalOther      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. The New River was originally listed in 2002. Line of Evidence No. 4665 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26874 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4665 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. Potential sources of 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to verify the original Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- trimethylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters that meets the requirements of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   213802010State Reviewed 1,2,4-TrimethylbenzeneWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved9 Nine water samples were collected from 12/2007 through 7/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the 0.5 ug/l reporting limit (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- trimethylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 12/2007 through 7/2008. One sample was collected once a month except for 12/2007. Two samples were collected in 12/2007. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2021820121,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalOther      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. The New River was originally listed in 2002. Line of Evidence No. 4665 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26874 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4665 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. Potential sources of 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- Trimethylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to verify the original Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of 1,2,4- trimethylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters that meets the requirements of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   46652006State ReviewedNJK: This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1,2,4-TrimethylbenzeneWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNot Recorded00Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUnspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Unspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228332012Chloroform Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Chloroform consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4666 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26875 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4666 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. None of sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the United States Environmental Protection Agency National Recommended Ambient Water Quality criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   213672010State Reviewed ChloroformWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved90Nine water samples were collected from 12/2007 through 7/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USEPA ambient water quality criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) of 5.7 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms (USEPA, 2002).1.National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPASamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 12/2007 through 7/2008. One sample was collected once a month except for 12/2007. Two samples were collected in 12/2007. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228332012Chloroform Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Chloroform consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4666 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26875 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4666 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. None of sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the United States Environmental Protection Agency National Recommended Ambient Water Quality criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   46662006State ReviewedNJK: This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.ChloroformWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNot Recorded00Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUnspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Unspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228332012Chloroform Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Chloroform consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4666 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26875 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4666 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. None of sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the United States Environmental Protection Agency National Recommended Ambient Water Quality criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   213692010State Reviewed ChloroformWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected from 5/2008 through 6/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USEPA ambient water quality criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) of 5.7 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms (USEPA, 2002).1.National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPASamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Two water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 5/2008 through 6/2008. One sample was collected once a month. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 2008b).1.Water Quality Monitoring of the New River at Mexicali and International Boundary. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228332012Chloroform Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Chloroform consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4666 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26875 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4666 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. None of sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the United States Environmental Protection Agency National Recommended Ambient Water Quality criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   268752010State Reviewed ChloroformWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved3700Three hundred and seventy water samples were collected from 1/1997 through 1/2007 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USEPA NRWQC (CRBRWQCB, 2009).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and from the New River VOC TMDL Development Monitoring Program in January 2009.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) of 5.7 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms (USEPA, 2002).1.National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPASamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Three hundred and seventy water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 1/1997 through 1/2007. Samples were not collected in the months 10/1999-1/2000, 3/2005, 7/2005, 9/2005, 10/2005, 7/2006-10/2006. In general two water samples were collected three hours apart once a month, except for 12/2005 and 6/2006 when only one sample was collected. Every third or fourth month (quarterly), eight samples were collected once every three hours over a twenty-four hour period. This lasted from 1/1997 through until 10/2003. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228332012Chloroform Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Chloroform consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4666 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26875 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4666 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. None of sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the United States Environmental Protection Agency National Recommended Ambient Water Quality criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   269292010State Reviewed ChloroformWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved390Thirty-nine water samples were collected from 12/2004 through 9/2005 at 7 locations in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USEPA NRWQC (CRBRWQCB, 2009).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and from the New River VOC TMDL Development Monitoring Program in January 2009.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) of 5.7 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms (USEPA, 2002).1.National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPASamples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA, where the All-American Canal crosses over the river, where Highway 98 crosses over the river, where Lyons Road crosses over the river, where Even Hewes Highway crosses over the river, at Drop 2, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Thirty-nine water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 12/2004 through 9/2005. Samples were collected every month from the International Boundary in Calexico, CA, and where Even Hewes Highway crosses over the river. Samples were collected from where the All-American Canal crosses over the river, where Highway 98 crosses over the river, and where Lyons Road crosses over the river in 1/2005, 2/2005, 7/2005, and 9/2005. Samples were collected from Drop 2, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea in 12/2004, 8/2005, and 9/2005. An extra sample was collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea in 7/2005. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRRWQCB, 2004).1.Quality Assurance Project Plan for sampling volatile organic compounds in the New River for TMDL Development. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228332012Chloroform Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Chloroform consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4666 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26875 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4666 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. None of sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the United States Environmental Protection Agency National Recommended Ambient Water Quality criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   298382010State Reviewed 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved15 Fifteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 4 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chloroform, Methylene Bromide, Bromochloromethane, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane, 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropane, 2,2-Dichloropropane, or 1,1-Dichloropropene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. An extra sample was collected from the International Boundary location in July of 2003. At Even Hewes and Drop 2 samples were collected in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228332012Chloroform Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Chloroform consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4666 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26875 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4666 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. None of sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the United States Environmental Protection Agency National Recommended Ambient Water Quality criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   213682010State Reviewed ChloroformWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved210Twenty-one water samples were collected from 10/2007 through 9/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USEPA ambient water quality criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) of 5.7 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms (USEPA, 2002).1.National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPASamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Twenty-one water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 10/2007 through 9/2008. Samples were not collected in 12/2007. Two samples were collected once a month except for 3/2008 and 9/2008. Only one sample was collected in those months. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228332012Chloroform Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Chloroform consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4666 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26875 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4666 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. None of sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the United States Environmental Protection Agency National Recommended Ambient Water Quality criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   360262012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168345ChloroformCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chloroform.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria to protect human health from the consumption chloroform in organisms is 470 ug/L.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228332012Chloroform Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Chloroform consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4666 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26875 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4666 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. None of sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the United States Environmental Protection Agency National Recommended Ambient Water Quality criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   353362012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167665ChloroformCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal110Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceed the criterion for Chloroform.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Chloroform criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 470 ug/L (The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria 2009).1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181362012Copper Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4921 is replaced by the LOE No. 46773, which is assessed based on the current water quality objective, so the LOE No. 4921 is not included in the final use rating. This listing was originally made by USEPA in 2006 assessment cycle based on the LOE No. 2922. In the final decision, USEPA stated that its applicable limit for copper was exceeded, on a 4-day average, "less frequently than once every three years.” In data assessed in 2006, six of 113 samples exceeded water quality objective. Although these number of exceedances did not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the listing Policy, all exceedances occurred in 2001 and 2002 that were more frequent than once every three years.However, the current water quality data collected by the SWAMP shows that no exceedances for copper have been observed from 2002 to 2012 (17 additional data collected from 2009 to 2012 are attached in the staff report). Although 44 total samples were collected by the SWAMP from May 2002 to October 2012, only 27 of SWAMP samples are included in current assessment because of the cutoff date for data solicitation, i.e., 12 samples in LOE No. 32899, and 15 samples in LOE No. 46773. For a final use rating determination, these two LOEs are combined with LOE No. 2922, and all three LOEs result in the total number of 140 samples. In addition, six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5278 and 5048 are combined for a use rating determination as well.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater, and none of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   29222006State Reviewed CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal1136Samples were collected by the RWQCB from June 1995 to December 2003 on the New River at the International Boundary. Of the 98 monthly samples, 6 were in exceedance of the chronic criteria and 0 were in exceedance of the acute criteria. Samples were also collected by the RWQCB at three locations on the New River from 6/11/1996 to 12/4/1996. None of the 6 samples were in exceedance. Samples were also collected by the RWQCB from 10/31/1999 to 11/6/1999 on the New River. None of these 9 samples were in exceedance (CRBRWQCB, 2004c) (USEPA, 2007).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCTR: freshwater chronic maximum as a 4-day average based on hardness and freshwater acute maximum based on hardness.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected on the New River at the International Boundary. For the 6 samples, they were collected on the New River at the International Boundary, and at both the International Drain and Puente Madero.The 98 samples were collected monthly from June 1995 to December 2003. The 6 samples were collected on 6 days from 6/11/1996 to 12/4/1996, and the 9 samples were collected monthly from 10/31/1999 to 11/6/1999.For the 98 samples, temperature, pH, D.O., and conductivity were also measured.Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181362012Copper Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4921 is replaced by the LOE No. 46773, which is assessed based on the current water quality objective, so the LOE No. 4921 is not included in the final use rating. This listing was originally made by USEPA in 2006 assessment cycle based on the LOE No. 2922. In the final decision, USEPA stated that its applicable limit for copper was exceeded, on a 4-day average, "less frequently than once every three years.” In data assessed in 2006, six of 113 samples exceeded water quality objective. Although these number of exceedances did not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the listing Policy, all exceedances occurred in 2001 and 2002 that were more frequent than once every three years.However, the current water quality data collected by the SWAMP shows that no exceedances for copper have been observed from 2002 to 2012 (17 additional data collected from 2009 to 2012 are attached in the staff report). Although 44 total samples were collected by the SWAMP from May 2002 to October 2012, only 27 of SWAMP samples are included in current assessment because of the cutoff date for data solicitation, i.e., 12 samples in LOE No. 32899, and 15 samples in LOE No. 46773. For a final use rating determination, these two LOEs are combined with LOE No. 2922, and all three LOEs result in the total number of 140 samples. In addition, six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5278 and 5048 are combined for a use rating determination as well.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater, and none of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   49212010State Reviewed CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved150Fifteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. An additional sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 7/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181362012Copper Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4921 is replaced by the LOE No. 46773, which is assessed based on the current water quality objective, so the LOE No. 4921 is not included in the final use rating. This listing was originally made by USEPA in 2006 assessment cycle based on the LOE No. 2922. In the final decision, USEPA stated that its applicable limit for copper was exceeded, on a 4-day average, "less frequently than once every three years.” In data assessed in 2006, six of 113 samples exceeded water quality objective. Although these number of exceedances did not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the listing Policy, all exceedances occurred in 2001 and 2002 that were more frequent than once every three years.However, the current water quality data collected by the SWAMP shows that no exceedances for copper have been observed from 2002 to 2012 (17 additional data collected from 2009 to 2012 are attached in the staff report). Although 44 total samples were collected by the SWAMP from May 2002 to October 2012, only 27 of SWAMP samples are included in current assessment because of the cutoff date for data solicitation, i.e., 12 samples in LOE No. 32899, and 15 samples in LOE No. 46773. For a final use rating determination, these two LOEs are combined with LOE No. 2922, and all three LOEs result in the total number of 140 samples. In addition, six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5278 and 5048 are combined for a use rating determination as well.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater, and none of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   467732012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved150Fifteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. An additional sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 7/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181362012Copper Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4921 is replaced by the LOE No. 46773, which is assessed based on the current water quality objective, so the LOE No. 4921 is not included in the final use rating. This listing was originally made by USEPA in 2006 assessment cycle based on the LOE No. 2922. In the final decision, USEPA stated that its applicable limit for copper was exceeded, on a 4-day average, "less frequently than once every three years.” In data assessed in 2006, six of 113 samples exceeded water quality objective. Although these number of exceedances did not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the listing Policy, all exceedances occurred in 2001 and 2002 that were more frequent than once every three years.However, the current water quality data collected by the SWAMP shows that no exceedances for copper have been observed from 2002 to 2012 (17 additional data collected from 2009 to 2012 are attached in the staff report). Although 44 total samples were collected by the SWAMP from May 2002 to October 2012, only 27 of SWAMP samples are included in current assessment because of the cutoff date for data solicitation, i.e., 12 samples in LOE No. 32899, and 15 samples in LOE No. 46773. For a final use rating determination, these two LOEs are combined with LOE No. 2922, and all three LOEs result in the total number of 140 samples. In addition, six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5278 and 5048 are combined for a use rating determination as well.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater, and none of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   355002012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168291CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Copper.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for copper is 149 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181362012Copper Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4921 is replaced by the LOE No. 46773, which is assessed based on the current water quality objective, so the LOE No. 4921 is not included in the final use rating. This listing was originally made by USEPA in 2006 assessment cycle based on the LOE No. 2922. In the final decision, USEPA stated that its applicable limit for copper was exceeded, on a 4-day average, "less frequently than once every three years.” In data assessed in 2006, six of 113 samples exceeded water quality objective. Although these number of exceedances did not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the listing Policy, all exceedances occurred in 2001 and 2002 that were more frequent than once every three years.However, the current water quality data collected by the SWAMP shows that no exceedances for copper have been observed from 2002 to 2012 (17 additional data collected from 2009 to 2012 are attached in the staff report). Although 44 total samples were collected by the SWAMP from May 2002 to October 2012, only 27 of SWAMP samples are included in current assessment because of the cutoff date for data solicitation, i.e., 12 samples in LOE No. 32899, and 15 samples in LOE No. 46773. For a final use rating determination, these two LOEs are combined with LOE No. 2922, and all three LOEs result in the total number of 140 samples. In addition, six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5278 and 5048 are combined for a use rating determination as well.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater, and none of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   50482010State Reviewed CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effects Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effects Criteria of 15 mg/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (USDOI, 1998).1.Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181362012Copper Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4921 is replaced by the LOE No. 46773, which is assessed based on the current water quality objective, so the LOE No. 4921 is not included in the final use rating. This listing was originally made by USEPA in 2006 assessment cycle based on the LOE No. 2922. In the final decision, USEPA stated that its applicable limit for copper was exceeded, on a 4-day average, "less frequently than once every three years.” In data assessed in 2006, six of 113 samples exceeded water quality objective. Although these number of exceedances did not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the listing Policy, all exceedances occurred in 2001 and 2002 that were more frequent than once every three years.However, the current water quality data collected by the SWAMP shows that no exceedances for copper have been observed from 2002 to 2012 (17 additional data collected from 2009 to 2012 are attached in the staff report). Although 44 total samples were collected by the SWAMP from May 2002 to October 2012, only 27 of SWAMP samples are included in current assessment because of the cutoff date for data solicitation, i.e., 12 samples in LOE No. 32899, and 15 samples in LOE No. 46773. For a final use rating determination, these two LOEs are combined with LOE No. 2922, and all three LOEs result in the total number of 140 samples. In addition, six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5278 and 5048 are combined for a use rating determination as well.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater, and none of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   328992012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21916Copper, DissolvedWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved120None of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for copper.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 723NRBDRY (New River at Boundary), and 723NROTWM (New River Outlet).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181362012Copper Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4921 is replaced by the LOE No. 46773, which is assessed based on the current water quality objective, so the LOE No. 4921 is not included in the final use rating. This listing was originally made by USEPA in 2006 assessment cycle based on the LOE No. 2922. In the final decision, USEPA stated that its applicable limit for copper was exceeded, on a 4-day average, "less frequently than once every three years.” In data assessed in 2006, six of 113 samples exceeded water quality objective. Although these number of exceedances did not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the listing Policy, all exceedances occurred in 2001 and 2002 that were more frequent than once every three years.However, the current water quality data collected by the SWAMP shows that no exceedances for copper have been observed from 2002 to 2012 (17 additional data collected from 2009 to 2012 are attached in the staff report). Although 44 total samples were collected by the SWAMP from May 2002 to October 2012, only 27 of SWAMP samples are included in current assessment because of the cutoff date for data solicitation, i.e., 12 samples in LOE No. 32899, and 15 samples in LOE No. 46773. For a final use rating determination, these two LOEs are combined with LOE No. 2922, and all three LOEs result in the total number of 140 samples. In addition, six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5278 and 5048 are combined for a use rating determination as well.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater, and none of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   352972012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167704CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Copper.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for copper is 149 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181362012Copper Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4921 is replaced by the LOE No. 46773, which is assessed based on the current water quality objective, so the LOE No. 4921 is not included in the final use rating. This listing was originally made by USEPA in 2006 assessment cycle based on the LOE No. 2922. In the final decision, USEPA stated that its applicable limit for copper was exceeded, on a 4-day average, "less frequently than once every three years.” In data assessed in 2006, six of 113 samples exceeded water quality objective. Although these number of exceedances did not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the listing Policy, all exceedances occurred in 2001 and 2002 that were more frequent than once every three years.However, the current water quality data collected by the SWAMP shows that no exceedances for copper have been observed from 2002 to 2012 (17 additional data collected from 2009 to 2012 are attached in the staff report). Although 44 total samples were collected by the SWAMP from May 2002 to October 2012, only 27 of SWAMP samples are included in current assessment because of the cutoff date for data solicitation, i.e., 12 samples in LOE No. 32899, and 15 samples in LOE No. 46773. For a final use rating determination, these two LOEs are combined with LOE No. 2922, and all three LOEs result in the total number of 140 samples. In addition, six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5278 and 5048 are combined for a use rating determination as well.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater, and none of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   51072010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181362012Copper Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4921 is replaced by the LOE No. 46773, which is assessed based on the current water quality objective, so the LOE No. 4921 is not included in the final use rating. This listing was originally made by USEPA in 2006 assessment cycle based on the LOE No. 2922. In the final decision, USEPA stated that its applicable limit for copper was exceeded, on a 4-day average, "less frequently than once every three years.” In data assessed in 2006, six of 113 samples exceeded water quality objective. Although these number of exceedances did not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the listing Policy, all exceedances occurred in 2001 and 2002 that were more frequent than once every three years.However, the current water quality data collected by the SWAMP shows that no exceedances for copper have been observed from 2002 to 2012 (17 additional data collected from 2009 to 2012 are attached in the staff report). Although 44 total samples were collected by the SWAMP from May 2002 to October 2012, only 27 of SWAMP samples are included in current assessment because of the cutoff date for data solicitation, i.e., 12 samples in LOE No. 32899, and 15 samples in LOE No. 46773. For a final use rating determination, these two LOEs are combined with LOE No. 2922, and all three LOEs result in the total number of 140 samples. In addition, six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5278 and 5048 are combined for a use rating determination as well.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater, and none of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   52782010State Reviewed CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved160Fifty-seven water samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Forty-one water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 16 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 2/1973 through 5/1984. Of all these samples, none exceed the USFWS Biological Effects Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Bilogical Effects Criteria of 15 mg/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (USDOI, 1998).1.Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.Samples were collected at the following New River location: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca., and USGS Station No. 10254970 near the International Boundary in Calexico, Ca.Fifty-seven samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 2/1973 through 2/1985. Twenty-nine samples were collected from 1973-1979, and 28 samples were collected from 1980-1985. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181362012Copper Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4921 is replaced by the LOE No. 46773, which is assessed based on the current water quality objective, so the LOE No. 4921 is not included in the final use rating. This listing was originally made by USEPA in 2006 assessment cycle based on the LOE No. 2922. In the final decision, USEPA stated that its applicable limit for copper was exceeded, on a 4-day average, "less frequently than once every three years.” In data assessed in 2006, six of 113 samples exceeded water quality objective. Although these number of exceedances did not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the listing Policy, all exceedances occurred in 2001 and 2002 that were more frequent than once every three years.However, the current water quality data collected by the SWAMP shows that no exceedances for copper have been observed from 2002 to 2012 (17 additional data collected from 2009 to 2012 are attached in the staff report). Although 44 total samples were collected by the SWAMP from May 2002 to October 2012, only 27 of SWAMP samples are included in current assessment because of the cutoff date for data solicitation, i.e., 12 samples in LOE No. 32899, and 15 samples in LOE No. 46773. For a final use rating determination, these two LOEs are combined with LOE No. 2922, and all three LOEs result in the total number of 140 samples. In addition, six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5278 and 5048 are combined for a use rating determination as well.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 140 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater, and none of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   53222010State Reviewed CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal30Three sediment quality samples were taken at 3 locations along the river. The samples were generally collected from 11/1973 through 4/2003. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 149 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following New River locations: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca., USGS Station No. 330559115385601 at Lack Road near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254970 near the International Boundary in Calexico, Ca.Three samples were collected. One sample was collected on 11/07/1973, another sample was collected on 10/24/01, and another sample was collected 4/14/03. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial232952012Pesticides Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalChange from general pollutant to specific pollutant listing (e.g. metals to copper)      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list in favor of listings for specific pesticides on the section 303(d) list.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess thispollutant. Line of Evidence No. 4392 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006.The listing has been cited as "pesticides" rather than listing for specifc pollutants responsible for the impairment. There is no guideline for evaluating the general pollutant "Pesticides" and it cannot be determined if the pollutant is likely to cause or contribute to a toxic effect. The New River is currently listed on the 303(d) list as impaired by the six specific pesticides: Chlordane, Chlorpyrifos, DDT, Diazinon, Dieldrin, and Toxaphene. Each of these specific pesticides have lines of evidence to support their listings. As new data is collected and assessed these and other specific pesticides may be either listed or delisted. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. A water quality guideline for the general pollutant "pesticides" is not available that complies with the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Water quality guidelines for specific pesticides are available that comply with section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.2. The New River is currently listed on the 303(d) list as impaired by six specific pesticides. 3. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data andinformation are available indicating that standards are met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   43922006State ReviewedNJK: This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.PesticidesWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNot Recorded00Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUnspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Unspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229822012Toluene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Toluene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4393 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4393 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   268782010State Reviewed 1, 4 -dichlorobenzene | TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved3700Three hundred and seventy water samples were collected from 1/1997 through 1/2007 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2009).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and from the New River VOC TMDL Development Monitoring Program in January 2009.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents, 2600 ug/l 1,4 Dichlorobenzene, 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Three hundred and seventy water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 1/1997 through 1/2007. Samples were not collected in the months 10/1999-1/2000, 3/2005, 7/2005, 9/2005, 10/2005, 7/2006-10/2006. In general two water samples were collected three hours apart once a month, except for 12/2005 and 6/2006 when only one sample was collected. Every third or fourth month (quarterly), eight samples were collected once every three hours over a twenty-four hour period. This lasted from 1/1997 through until 10/2003. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229822012Toluene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Toluene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4393 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4393 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   269322010State Reviewed 1, 4 -dichlorobenzene | TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved390Thirty-nine water samples were collected from 12/2004 through 9/2005 at 7 locations in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2009).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and from the New River VOC TMDL Development Monitoring Program in January 2009.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents, 2600 ug/l 1,4 Dichlorobenzene, 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA, where the All-American Canal crosses over the river, where Highway 98 crosses over the river, where Lyons Road crosses over the river, where Even Hewes Highway crosses over the river, at Drop 2, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Thirty-nine water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 12/2004 through 9/2005. Samples were collected every month from the International Boundary in Calexico, CA, and where Even Hewes Highway crosses over the river. Samples were collected from where the All-American Canal crosses over the river, where Highway 98 crosses over the river, and where Lyons Road crosses over the river in 1/2005, 2/2005, 7/2005, and 9/2005. Samples were collected from Drop 2, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea in 12/2004, 8/2005, and 9/2005. An extra sample was collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea in 7/2005. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRRWQCB, 2004).1.Quality Assurance Project Plan for sampling volatile organic compounds in the New River for TMDL Development. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229822012Toluene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Toluene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4393 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4393 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   353902012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168159TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal110Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceed the criterion for Toluene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Toluene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 200,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229822012Toluene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Toluene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4393 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4393 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   213752010State Reviewed 1, 4 -dichlorobenzene | TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved210Twenty-one water samples were collected from 10/2007 through 9/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents, 2600 ug/l 1,4 Dichlorobenzene, 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Twenty-one water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 10/2007 through 9/2008. Samples were not collected in 12/2007. Two samples were collected once a month except for 3/2008 and 9/2008. Only one sample was collected in those months. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229822012Toluene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Toluene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4393 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4393 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   43932006State ReviewedNJK: This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.TolueneWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNot Recorded00Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUnspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Unspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229822012Toluene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Toluene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4393 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4393 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   50382010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Ethylbenzene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved190Nineteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 4 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Nineteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the international Boundary and the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Another sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 7/2003. The rest of the locations were sampled twice in May and october of 2002 The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229822012Toluene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Toluene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4393 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4393 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   213742010State Reviewed 1, 4 -dichlorobenzene | TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved90Nine water samples were collected from 12/2007 through 7/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents, 2600 ug/l 1,4 Dichlorobenzene, 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 12/2007 through 7/2008. One sample was collected once a month except for 12/2007. Two samples were collected in 12/2007. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229822012Toluene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Toluene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4393 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4393 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   213762010State Reviewed 1, 4 -dichlorobenzene | TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected from 5/2008 through 6/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents, 2600 ug/l 1,4 Dichlorobenzene, 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Two water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 5/2008 through 6/2008. One sample was collected once a month. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 2008b).1.Water Quality Monitoring of the New River at Mexicali and International Boundary. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229822012Toluene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; threatened water no longer threatened      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Toluene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4393 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4393 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   359022012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168373TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Toluene.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Toluene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 200,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial303852012Zinc Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of 17 sediment samples exceeded sediment quality guideline in last assessment cycle, and LOE No. 2952 was used as a supporting LOE. However, more sediment data for zinc were collected over the years, and the total sample size became 28 with two exceedances, which meets the required sample size for delisting under Table 4.1. In addition, seperate decision has been made for toxicity, and sediment toxicity caused by zinc was no longer observed. Thus, the LOE No. 2952 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 2930, 5027, and 32568 were combined to determine a use rating as well.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, none of 128 water sample exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   29302006State Reviewed ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal1130Samples were collected by the RWQCB from June 1995 to December 2003 on the New River at the International Boundary. Of the 98 monthly samples, 0 were in exceedance of the criteria. Samples were also collected by the RWQCB on the New River at 3 locations from 6/11/1996 to 12/4/1996. None of these 6 samples were in exceedance. Samples were also collected by the RWQCB from 10/31/1999 to 11/6/1999 on the New River. None of these 9 samples were in exceedance (CRBRWQCB, 2004C).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCTR: freshwater acute maximum based on hardness and freshwater chronic maximum as a 4-day average based on hardness.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Most samples were collected on the New River at the International Boundary. For the 6 samples, they were collected on the New River at the International Boundary, and at both the International Drain and Puente Madero.The 98 samples were collected monthly from June 1995 to December 2003. The 6 samples were collected on 6 days from 6/11/1996 to 12/4/1996, and the 9 samples were collected monthly from 10/31/1999 to 11/6/1999.For the 98 samples, temperature, pH, D.O., and conductivity were also measured.Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial303852012Zinc Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of 17 sediment samples exceeded sediment quality guideline in last assessment cycle, and LOE No. 2952 was used as a supporting LOE. However, more sediment data for zinc were collected over the years, and the total sample size became 28 with two exceedances, which meets the required sample size for delisting under Table 4.1. In addition, seperate decision has been made for toxicity, and sediment toxicity caused by zinc was no longer observed. Thus, the LOE No. 2952 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 2930, 5027, and 32568 were combined to determine a use rating as well.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, none of 128 water sample exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   29522006State Reviewed ToxicityWarm Freshwater Habitat ToxicitySedimentNone44Toxicity testing data generated from 4 sediment samples. Four of these samples were toxic (SWAMP, 2004).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedBasin Plan: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Significant toxicity as compared to control.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Three stations were sampled, all were situated along the New River from the international boundary with Mexico to the outlet (mouth) of New River into the Salton Sea.All samples were taken between the spring (May) and the fall (October) of 2002. Toxicity was detected during both seasons.The New River flows from Mexico through the Imperial Valley in the Salton Sea. Most of the water flowing through it comes from agricultural return flows.SWAMP QAPP. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial303852012Zinc Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of 17 sediment samples exceeded sediment quality guideline in last assessment cycle, and LOE No. 2952 was used as a supporting LOE. However, more sediment data for zinc were collected over the years, and the total sample size became 28 with two exceedances, which meets the required sample size for delisting under Table 4.1. In addition, seperate decision has been made for toxicity, and sediment toxicity caused by zinc was no longer observed. Thus, the LOE No. 2952 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 2930, 5027, and 32568 were combined to determine a use rating as well.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, none of 128 water sample exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   48742010State Reviewed ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal142Fourteen sediment quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples , 2 exceeded the PEC. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 11/04/2003, and 10/04/2004 from the International Boundary location (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) of 459 mg/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 11/04/2003 through 10/04/2004. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial303852012Zinc Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of 17 sediment samples exceeded sediment quality guideline in last assessment cycle, and LOE No. 2952 was used as a supporting LOE. However, more sediment data for zinc were collected over the years, and the total sample size became 28 with two exceedances, which meets the required sample size for delisting under Table 4.1. In addition, seperate decision has been made for toxicity, and sediment toxicity caused by zinc was no longer observed. Thus, the LOE No. 2952 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 2930, 5027, and 32568 were combined to determine a use rating as well.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, none of 128 water sample exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   50272010State Reviewed Lead | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved150Fifteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Lead, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Another sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 7/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial303852012Zinc Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of 17 sediment samples exceeded sediment quality guideline in last assessment cycle, and LOE No. 2952 was used as a supporting LOE. However, more sediment data for zinc were collected over the years, and the total sample size became 28 with two exceedances, which meets the required sample size for delisting under Table 4.1. In addition, seperate decision has been made for toxicity, and sediment toxicity caused by zinc was no longer observed. Thus, the LOE No. 2952 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 2930, 5027, and 32568 were combined to determine a use rating as well.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, none of 128 water sample exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   53242010State Reviewed ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal30Three sediment quality samples were taken at 3 locations along the river. The samples were generally collected from 11/1973 through 4/2003. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 459 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following New River locations: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca., USGS Station No. 330559115385601 at Lack Road near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254970 near the International Boundary in Calexico, Ca.Three samples were collected. One sample was collected on 11/07/1973, another sample was collected on 10/24/01, and another sample was collected 4/14/03. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial303852012Zinc Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of 17 sediment samples exceeded sediment quality guideline in last assessment cycle, and LOE No. 2952 was used as a supporting LOE. However, more sediment data for zinc were collected over the years, and the total sample size became 28 with two exceedances, which meets the required sample size for delisting under Table 4.1. In addition, seperate decision has been made for toxicity, and sediment toxicity caused by zinc was no longer observed. Thus, the LOE No. 2952 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 2930, 5027, and 32568 were combined to determine a use rating as well.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, none of 128 water sample exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   325682012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21944ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120None of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for zinc.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 723NRBDRY (New River at Boundary), and 723NROTWM (New River Outlet).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial303852012Zinc Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of 17 sediment samples exceeded sediment quality guideline in last assessment cycle, and LOE No. 2952 was used as a supporting LOE. However, more sediment data for zinc were collected over the years, and the total sample size became 28 with two exceedances, which meets the required sample size for delisting under Table 4.1. In addition, seperate decision has been made for toxicity, and sediment toxicity caused by zinc was no longer observed. Thus, the LOE No. 2952 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 2930, 5027, and 32568 were combined to determine a use rating as well.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, none of 128 water sample exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   354132012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168184ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for zinc is 459 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial303852012Zinc Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of 17 sediment samples exceeded sediment quality guideline in last assessment cycle, and LOE No. 2952 was used as a supporting LOE. However, more sediment data for zinc were collected over the years, and the total sample size became 28 with two exceedances, which meets the required sample size for delisting under Table 4.1. In addition, seperate decision has been made for toxicity, and sediment toxicity caused by zinc was no longer observed. Thus, the LOE No. 2952 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 2930, 5027, and 32568 were combined to determine a use rating as well.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, none of 128 water sample exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   358972012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168312ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for zinc is 459 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228782012meta-para xylenes Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess meta,para-xylenes consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4387 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26876 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4387 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.Potential sources of meta,para-xylenes include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.There were a total of four hundred and forty-one water samples collected. When comparing the data to the drinking water secondary MCL for recreational uses, there were no exceedances.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   213722010State Reviewed Xylenes (total) (mixed)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved210Twenty-one water samples were collected from 10/2007 through 9/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 0.02 mg/l total xylenes for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Twenty-one water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 10/2007 through 9/2008. Samples were not collected in 12/2007. Two samples were collected once a month except for 3/2008 and 9/2008. Only one sample was collected in those months.. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228782012meta-para xylenes Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess meta,para-xylenes consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4387 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26876 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4387 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.Potential sources of meta,para-xylenes include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.There were a total of four hundred and forty-one water samples collected. When comparing the data to the drinking water secondary MCL for recreational uses, there were no exceedances.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   213732010State Reviewed Xylenes (total) (mixed)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected from 5/2008 through 6/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 0.02 mg/l total xylenes for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Two water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 5/2008 through 6/2008. One sample was collected once a month. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 2008b).1.Water Quality Monitoring of the New River at Mexicali and International Boundary. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228782012meta-para xylenes Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess meta,para-xylenes consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4387 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26876 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4387 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.Potential sources of meta,para-xylenes include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.There were a total of four hundred and forty-one water samples collected. When comparing the data to the drinking water secondary MCL for recreational uses, there were no exceedances.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   268762010State Reviewed Xylenes (total) (mixed)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved3700Three hundred and seventy water samples were collected from 1/1997 through 1/2007 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the SMCL (CRBRWQCB, 2009).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and from the New River VOC TMDL Development Monitoring Program in January 2009.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 0.02 mg/l total xylenes for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Three hundred and seventy water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 1/1997 through 1/2007. Samples were not collected in the months 10/1999-1/2000, 3/2005, 7/2005, 9/2005, 10/2005, 7/2006-10/2006. In general two water samples were collected three hours apart once a month, except for 12/2005 and 6/2006 when only one sample was collected. Every third or fourth month (quarterly), eight samples were collected once every three hours over a twenty-four hour period. This lasted from 1/1997 through until 10/2003. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228782012meta-para xylenes Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess meta,para-xylenes consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4387 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26876 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4387 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.Potential sources of meta,para-xylenes include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.There were a total of four hundred and forty-one water samples collected. When comparing the data to the drinking water secondary MCL for recreational uses, there were no exceedances.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   213702010State Reviewed Xylenes (total) (mixed)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved90Nine water samples were collected from 12/2007 through 7/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 0.02 mg/l total xylenes for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 12/2007 through 7/2008. One sample was collected once a month except for 12/2007. Two samples were collected in 12/2007. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228782012meta-para xylenes Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess meta,para-xylenes consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4387 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26876 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4387 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.Potential sources of meta,para-xylenes include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.There were a total of four hundred and forty-one water samples collected. When comparing the data to the drinking water secondary MCL for recreational uses, there were no exceedances.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   43872006State ReviewedNJK: This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.meta-para xylenesWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNot Recorded00Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUnspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Unspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228782012meta-para xylenes Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess meta,para-xylenes consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4387 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26876 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4387 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.Potential sources of meta,para-xylenes include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.There were a total of four hundred and forty-one water samples collected. When comparing the data to the drinking water secondary MCL for recreational uses, there were no exceedances.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   269302010State Reviewed Xylenes (total) (mixed)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved390Thirty-nine water samples were collected from 12/2004 through 9/2005 at 7 locations in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the SMCL (CRBRWQCB, 2009).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and from the New River VOC TMDL Development Monitoring Program in January 2009.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 0.02 mg/l total xylenes for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA, where the All-American Canal crosses over the river, where Highway 98 crosses over the river, where Lyons Road crosses over the river, where Even Hewes Highway crosses over the river, at Drop 2, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Thirty-nine water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 12/2004 through 9/2005. Samples were collected every month from the International Boundary in Calexico, CA, and where Even Hewes Highway crosses over the river. Samples were collected from where the All-American Canal crosses over the river, where Highway 98 crosses over the river, and where Lyons Road crosses over the river in 1/2005, 2/2005, 7/2005, and 9/2005. Samples were collected from Drop 2, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea in 12/2004, 8/2005, and 9/2005. An extra sample was collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea in 7/2005. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRRWQCB, 2004).1.Quality Assurance Project Plan for sampling volatile organic compounds in the New River for TMDL Development. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228342012o-Xylene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess o-xylene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4389 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26876 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4389 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.Potential sources of o-xylene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.There were a total of four hundred and forty-one water samples collected. When compared to the drinking water secondary MCL for recreational uses, there were no exceedances.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL used to interpret the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   213722010State Reviewed Xylenes (total) (mixed)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved210Twenty-one water samples were collected from 10/2007 through 9/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 0.02 mg/l total xylenes for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Twenty-one water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 10/2007 through 9/2008. Samples were not collected in 12/2007. Two samples were collected once a month except for 3/2008 and 9/2008. Only one sample was collected in those months.. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228342012o-Xylene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess o-xylene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4389 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26876 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4389 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.Potential sources of o-xylene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.There were a total of four hundred and forty-one water samples collected. When compared to the drinking water secondary MCL for recreational uses, there were no exceedances.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL used to interpret the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   213702010State Reviewed Xylenes (total) (mixed)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved90Nine water samples were collected from 12/2007 through 7/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 0.02 mg/l total xylenes for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 12/2007 through 7/2008. One sample was collected once a month except for 12/2007. Two samples were collected in 12/2007. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228342012o-Xylene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess o-xylene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4389 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26876 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4389 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.Potential sources of o-xylene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.There were a total of four hundred and forty-one water samples collected. When compared to the drinking water secondary MCL for recreational uses, there were no exceedances.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL used to interpret the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   43892006State ReviewedNJK: This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.o-XyleneWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNot Recorded00Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUnspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Unspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228342012o-Xylene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess o-xylene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4389 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26876 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4389 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.Potential sources of o-xylene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.There were a total of four hundred and forty-one water samples collected. When compared to the drinking water secondary MCL for recreational uses, there were no exceedances.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL used to interpret the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   213732010State Reviewed Xylenes (total) (mixed)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected from 5/2008 through 6/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 0.02 mg/l total xylenes for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Two water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 5/2008 through 6/2008. One sample was collected once a month. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 2008b).1.Water Quality Monitoring of the New River at Mexicali and International Boundary. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228342012o-Xylene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess o-xylene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4389 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26876 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4389 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.Potential sources of o-xylene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.There were a total of four hundred and forty-one water samples collected. When compared to the drinking water secondary MCL for recreational uses, there were no exceedances.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL used to interpret the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298632010State Reviewed o-XyleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 10/2002 through 5/2004 at 3 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of o-Xylene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from all three sampling locations in 10/2002. In 4/2003, 11/2003, and 5/2004 samples were collected from the International Boundary and the outlet to the Salton Sea locations only. In 7/2003 a sample was collected from the International Boundary only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228342012o-Xylene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess o-xylene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4389 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26876 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4389 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.Potential sources of o-xylene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.There were a total of four hundred and forty-one water samples collected. When compared to the drinking water secondary MCL for recreational uses, there were no exceedances.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL used to interpret the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   269302010State Reviewed Xylenes (total) (mixed)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved390Thirty-nine water samples were collected from 12/2004 through 9/2005 at 7 locations in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the SMCL (CRBRWQCB, 2009).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and from the New River VOC TMDL Development Monitoring Program in January 2009.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 0.02 mg/l total xylenes for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA, where the All-American Canal crosses over the river, where Highway 98 crosses over the river, where Lyons Road crosses over the river, where Even Hewes Highway crosses over the river, at Drop 2, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Thirty-nine water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 12/2004 through 9/2005. Samples were collected every month from the International Boundary in Calexico, CA, and where Even Hewes Highway crosses over the river. Samples were collected from where the All-American Canal crosses over the river, where Highway 98 crosses over the river, and where Lyons Road crosses over the river in 1/2005, 2/2005, 7/2005, and 9/2005. Samples were collected from Drop 2, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea in 12/2004, 8/2005, and 9/2005. An extra sample was collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea in 7/2005. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRRWQCB, 2004).1.Quality Assurance Project Plan for sampling volatile organic compounds in the New River for TMDL Development. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228342012o-Xylene Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess o-xylene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4389 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26876 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4389 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.Potential sources of o-xylene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.There were a total of four hundred and forty-one water samples collected. When compared to the drinking water secondary MCL for recreational uses, there were no exceedances.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 441 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL used to interpret the water quality objective, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   268762010State Reviewed Xylenes (total) (mixed)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved3700Three hundred and seventy water samples were collected from 1/1997 through 1/2007 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the SMCL (CRBRWQCB, 2009).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and from the New River VOC TMDL Development Monitoring Program in January 2009.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 0.02 mg/l total xylenes for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Three hundred and seventy water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 1/1997 through 1/2007. Samples were not collected in the months 10/1999-1/2000, 3/2005, 7/2005, 9/2005, 10/2005, 7/2006-10/2006. In general two water samples were collected three hours apart once a month, except for 12/2005 and 6/2006 when only one sample was collected. Every third or fourth month (quarterly), eight samples were collected once every three hours over a twenty-four hour period. This lasted from 1/1997 through until 10/2003. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229172012p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalOther      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Cymene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4390 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26877 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4390 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. Potential sources of p-Cymene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to verify the original Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   213772010State Reviewed p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved9 Nine water samples were collected from 12/2007 through 7/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the 0.5 ug/l reporting limit (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of p-cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 12/2007 through 7/2008. One sample was collected once a month except for 12/2007. Two samples were collected in 12/2007. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229172012p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalOther      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Cymene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4390 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26877 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4390 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. Potential sources of p-Cymene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to verify the original Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   213782010State Reviewed p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved21 Twenty-one water samples were collected from 10/2007 through 9/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the 0.5 ug/l reporting limit (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of p-cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Twenty-one water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 10/2007 through 9/2008. Samples were not collected in 12/2007. Two samples were collected once a month except for 3/2008 and 9/2008. Only one sample was collected in those months. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229172012p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalOther      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Cymene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4390 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26877 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4390 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. Potential sources of p-Cymene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to verify the original Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298372010State Reviewed 2-Chlorotoluene | 4-Chlorotoluene | p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved15 Fifteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 4 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. An extra sample was collected from the International Boundary location in July of 2003. At Even Hewes and Drop 2 samples were collected in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229172012p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalOther      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Cymene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4390 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26877 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4390 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. Potential sources of p-Cymene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to verify the original Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   269312010State Reviewed p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved39 Thirty-nine water samples were collected from 12/2004 through 9/2005 at 7 locations in the river (CRBRWQCB, 2009).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and from the New River VOC TMDL Development Monitoring Program in January 2009.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of p-cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA, where the All-American Canal crosses over the river, where Highway 98 crosses over the river, where Lyons Road crosses over the river, where Even Hewes Highway crosses over the river, at Drop 2, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Thirty-nine water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 12/2004 through 9/2005. Samples were collected every month from the International Boundary in Calexico, CA, and where Even Hewes Highway crosses over the river. Samples were collected from where the All-American Canal crosses over the river, where Highway 98 crosses over the river, and where Lyons Road crosses over the river in 1/2005, 2/2005, 7/2005, and 9/2005. Samples were collected from Drop 2, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea in 12/2004, 8/2005, and 9/2005. An extra sample was collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea in 7/2005. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRRWQCB, 2004).1.Quality Assurance Project Plan for sampling volatile organic compounds in the New River for TMDL Development. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229172012p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalOther      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Cymene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4390 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26877 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4390 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. Potential sources of p-Cymene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to verify the original Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   268772010State Reviewed p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved370 Three hundred and seventy water samples were collected from 1/1997 through 1/2007 at 1 location in the river (CRBRWQCB, 2009).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and from the New River VOC TMDL Development Monitoring Program in January 2009.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of p-cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Three hundred and seventy water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 1/1997 through 1/2007. Samples were not collected in the months 10/1999-1/2000, 3/2005, 7/2005, 9/2005, 10/2005, 7/2006-10/2006. In general two water samples were collected three hours apart once a month, except for 12/2005 and 6/2006 when only one sample was collected. Every third or fourth month (quarterly), eight samples were collected once every three hours over a twenty-four hour period. This lasted from 1/1997 through until 10/2003. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229172012p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)OriginalOther      YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Cymene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4390 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26877 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4390 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. Potential sources of p-Cymene include Industrial Point and Out-of-State sources.No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to verify the original Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   43902006State ReviewedNJK: This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNot Recorded00Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUnspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Unspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229302012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedOther      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Dichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4391 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4391 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. All of the LOEs written for the COMM beneficial uses were combined to determine a final support rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   347702012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675371, 4 -dichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal110Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 2,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229302012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedOther      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Dichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4391 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4391 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. All of the LOEs written for the COMM beneficial uses were combined to determine a final support rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   360012012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1683371, 4 -dichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 2,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229302012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedOther      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Dichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4391 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4391 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. All of the LOEs written for the COMM beneficial uses were combined to determine a final support rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   269322010State Reviewed 1, 4 -dichlorobenzene | TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved390Thirty-nine water samples were collected from 12/2004 through 9/2005 at 7 locations in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2009).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and from the New River VOC TMDL Development Monitoring Program in January 2009.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents, 2600 ug/l 1,4 Dichlorobenzene, 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA, where the All-American Canal crosses over the river, where Highway 98 crosses over the river, where Lyons Road crosses over the river, where Even Hewes Highway crosses over the river, at Drop 2, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Thirty-nine water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 12/2004 through 9/2005. Samples were collected every month from the International Boundary in Calexico, CA, and where Even Hewes Highway crosses over the river. Samples were collected from where the All-American Canal crosses over the river, where Highway 98 crosses over the river, and where Lyons Road crosses over the river in 1/2005, 2/2005, 7/2005, and 9/2005. Samples were collected from Drop 2, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea in 12/2004, 8/2005, and 9/2005. An extra sample was collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea in 7/2005. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRRWQCB, 2004).1.Quality Assurance Project Plan for sampling volatile organic compounds in the New River for TMDL Development. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229302012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedOther      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Dichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4391 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4391 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. All of the LOEs written for the COMM beneficial uses were combined to determine a final support rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   268782010State Reviewed 1, 4 -dichlorobenzene | TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved3700Three hundred and seventy water samples were collected from 1/1997 through 1/2007 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2009).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and from the New River VOC TMDL Development Monitoring Program in January 2009.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents, 2600 ug/l 1,4 Dichlorobenzene, 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Three hundred and seventy water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 1/1997 through 1/2007. Samples were not collected in the months 10/1999-1/2000, 3/2005, 7/2005, 9/2005, 10/2005, 7/2006-10/2006. In general two water samples were collected three hours apart once a month, except for 12/2005 and 6/2006 when only one sample was collected. Every third or fourth month (quarterly), eight samples were collected once every three hours over a twenty-four hour period. This lasted from 1/1997 through until 10/2003. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229302012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedOther      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Dichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4391 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4391 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. All of the LOEs written for the COMM beneficial uses were combined to determine a final support rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   213762010State Reviewed 1, 4 -dichlorobenzene | TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected from 5/2008 through 6/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents, 2600 ug/l 1,4 Dichlorobenzene, 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Two water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 5/2008 through 6/2008. One sample was collected once a month. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 2008b).1.Water Quality Monitoring of the New River at Mexicali and International Boundary. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229302012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedOther      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Dichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4391 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4391 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. All of the LOEs written for the COMM beneficial uses were combined to determine a final support rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   213752010State Reviewed 1, 4 -dichlorobenzene | TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved210Twenty-one water samples were collected from 10/2007 through 9/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents, 2600 ug/l 1,4 Dichlorobenzene, 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Twenty-one water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 10/2007 through 9/2008. Samples were not collected in 12/2007. Two samples were collected once a month except for 3/2008 and 9/2008. Only one sample was collected in those months. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229302012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedOther      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Dichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4391 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4391 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. All of the LOEs written for the COMM beneficial uses were combined to determine a final support rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   43912006State ReviewedNJK: This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNot Recorded00Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUnspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Unspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229302012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedOther      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Dichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4391 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4391 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. All of the LOEs written for the COMM beneficial uses were combined to determine a final support rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   50382010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Ethylbenzene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved190Nineteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 4 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Nineteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the international Boundary and the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Another sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 7/2003. The rest of the locations were sampled twice in May and october of 2002 The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial229302012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedOther      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess p-Dichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 4.1. Line of Evidence No. 4391 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used instead to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The data in Line of Evidence No. 26878 is the original data set used to list the New River in 2002, because of this Line of Evidence No. 4391 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. All of the LOEs written for the COMM beneficial uses were combined to determine a final support rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 473 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria used to interpret the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   213742010State Reviewed 1, 4 -dichlorobenzene | TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved90Nine water samples were collected from 12/2007 through 7/2008 at 1 location in the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2008).1.Data compiled from the Regional Board New River/Mexicali Sanitation Program and New River TMDL Development and Implementation Monitoring Program in October 2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: The waters shall be free from substances that may be discharged into the (New) River as a result of human activity in concentrations which are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which may significantly impair the beneficial uses of such waters (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents, 2600 ug/l 1,4 Dichlorobenzene, 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary in Calexico, CA.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed monthly from 12/2007 through 7/2008. One sample was collected once a month except for 12/2007. Two samples were collected in 12/2007. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 1996).1.Workplan/Quality Assurance Project Plan for Monitoring the New River System. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214292012Selenium Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.4 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeded the water quality objective.Line of evidence No 4395 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data, and it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. However, the impairment was not observed in the more current water data, collected from 2005 to 2008 (LOE No. 46833). Although it is not included in current assessment cycle, data collected from April 2009 to current years by the SWAMP, shows no exceedance as well. Since no data can be tractable for the LOE No. 4935, the LOE No. 4935 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 23499 was created in last assessment cycle because the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has issued a Fish Advisory for the Salton Sea. According to the Listing Policy section 3.4, a health advisory can be used as a basis for listing if data must be available indicating the evaluation guideline for tissue is exceed. LOE No. 5430, which was assessed in last assessment cycle, shows none of 35 fish tissue samples exceedances. Thus, the LOE No. 23499, a health advisory, can't be used to show that this water body is impaired, and therefore, it is not included in the final use rating.LOE No. 30093 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidline of sediment fraction for selenium was available.LOE No. 46434 is combined with LOE No. 5430 to determine a final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 39 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and none of 20 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   43952006State ReviewedNJK: This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.SeleniumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNot Recorded00Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUnspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Unspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214292012Selenium Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.4 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeded the water quality objective.Line of evidence No 4395 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data, and it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. However, the impairment was not observed in the more current water data, collected from 2005 to 2008 (LOE No. 46833). Although it is not included in current assessment cycle, data collected from April 2009 to current years by the SWAMP, shows no exceedance as well. Since no data can be tractable for the LOE No. 4935, the LOE No. 4935 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 23499 was created in last assessment cycle because the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has issued a Fish Advisory for the Salton Sea. According to the Listing Policy section 3.4, a health advisory can be used as a basis for listing if data must be available indicating the evaluation guideline for tissue is exceed. LOE No. 5430, which was assessed in last assessment cycle, shows none of 35 fish tissue samples exceedances. Thus, the LOE No. 23499, a health advisory, can't be used to show that this water body is impaired, and therefore, it is not included in the final use rating.LOE No. 30093 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidline of sediment fraction for selenium was available.LOE No. 46434 is combined with LOE No. 5430 to determine a final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 39 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and none of 20 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   54302010State Reviewed SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal350Thirty-five fish fillet samples were taken at 3 locations in the sea. The fish samples were generally collected from 8/1985 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 7400 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the following Salton Sea locations: from the North end, the South end and the West Side.Fish samples were generally collected from 6/1984 through 11/2000. Fish samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty five fish fillet samples of bairdiella, orangemouth corvina, redbelly tilapia, tilapia, and sargo were collected.Five bairdiella fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, 1987, (2)1989, and 2000. Ten orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1984-87, (4)1991, 1997, and 1999. Six orangemouth corvine single fish fillet samples were collected in the year (6)1986. Two redbelly tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in year (2)1995. Nine tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985,1987, (2)1996, 1997, (2)1998, and (2)2000. Three sargo fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, 1987, and 1991. Field procedures described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. Used CDFG's Laboratory Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214292012Selenium Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.4 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeded the water quality objective.Line of evidence No 4395 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data, and it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. However, the impairment was not observed in the more current water data, collected from 2005 to 2008 (LOE No. 46833). Although it is not included in current assessment cycle, data collected from April 2009 to current years by the SWAMP, shows no exceedance as well. Since no data can be tractable for the LOE No. 4935, the LOE No. 4935 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 23499 was created in last assessment cycle because the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has issued a Fish Advisory for the Salton Sea. According to the Listing Policy section 3.4, a health advisory can be used as a basis for listing if data must be available indicating the evaluation guideline for tissue is exceed. LOE No. 5430, which was assessed in last assessment cycle, shows none of 35 fish tissue samples exceedances. Thus, the LOE No. 23499, a health advisory, can't be used to show that this water body is impaired, and therefore, it is not included in the final use rating.LOE No. 30093 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidline of sediment fraction for selenium was available.LOE No. 46434 is combined with LOE No. 5430 to determine a final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 39 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and none of 20 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   234992010State Reviewed SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Health AdvisoriesTissueFish whole body  A fish consumption advisory has been established for selenium in the Salton Sea by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Because of elevated selenium levels, no one should eat more than four ounces of croaker, orangemouth corvina, sargo, or tilapia taken from the Salton Sea in any two-week period.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneNot Specified  A fish consumption advisory has been established for selenium in the Salton Sea by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Because of elevated selenium levels, no one should eat more than four ounces of croaker, orangemouth corvina, sargo, or tilapia taken from the Salton Sea in any two-week period.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene   Assume good Quality Control 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214292012Selenium Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.4 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeded the water quality objective.Line of evidence No 4395 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data, and it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. However, the impairment was not observed in the more current water data, collected from 2005 to 2008 (LOE No. 46833). Although it is not included in current assessment cycle, data collected from April 2009 to current years by the SWAMP, shows no exceedance as well. Since no data can be tractable for the LOE No. 4935, the LOE No. 4935 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 23499 was created in last assessment cycle because the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has issued a Fish Advisory for the Salton Sea. According to the Listing Policy section 3.4, a health advisory can be used as a basis for listing if data must be available indicating the evaluation guideline for tissue is exceed. LOE No. 5430, which was assessed in last assessment cycle, shows none of 35 fish tissue samples exceedances. Thus, the LOE No. 23499, a health advisory, can't be used to show that this water body is impaired, and therefore, it is not included in the final use rating.LOE No. 30093 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidline of sediment fraction for selenium was available.LOE No. 46434 is combined with LOE No. 5430 to determine a final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 39 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and none of 20 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   300932010State Reviewed SeleniumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal29 Twenty-nine sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Selenium for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-nine sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations. An extra sample was collected and analyzed from the Salton Sea GS9 sampling location in September of 2002. The Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 sampling locations were sampled in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214292012Selenium Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.4 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeded the water quality objective.Line of evidence No 4395 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data, and it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. However, the impairment was not observed in the more current water data, collected from 2005 to 2008 (LOE No. 46833). Although it is not included in current assessment cycle, data collected from April 2009 to current years by the SWAMP, shows no exceedance as well. Since no data can be tractable for the LOE No. 4935, the LOE No. 4935 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 23499 was created in last assessment cycle because the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has issued a Fish Advisory for the Salton Sea. According to the Listing Policy section 3.4, a health advisory can be used as a basis for listing if data must be available indicating the evaluation guideline for tissue is exceed. LOE No. 5430, which was assessed in last assessment cycle, shows none of 35 fish tissue samples exceedances. Thus, the LOE No. 23499, a health advisory, can't be used to show that this water body is impaired, and therefore, it is not included in the final use rating.LOE No. 30093 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidline of sediment fraction for selenium was available.LOE No. 46434 is combined with LOE No. 5430 to determine a final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 39 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and none of 20 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   464342012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671727SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. Four composites (5 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia leucosticta. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenium in fish tissue is 7.4 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A background dietary consumption rate of 0.114 mg/day is applied for this micronutrient.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Salton Sea - 728PSS171]. Samples were collected from 4 locations. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214292012Selenium Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)RevisedApplicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified      YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.4 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeded the water quality objective.Line of evidence No 4395 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data, and it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. However, the impairment was not observed in the more current water data, collected from 2005 to 2008 (LOE No. 46833). Although it is not included in current assessment cycle, data collected from April 2009 to current years by the SWAMP, shows no exceedance as well. Since no data can be tractable for the LOE No. 4935, the LOE No. 4935 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 23499 was created in last assessment cycle because the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has issued a Fish Advisory for the Salton Sea. According to the Listing Policy section 3.4, a health advisory can be used as a basis for listing if data must be available indicating the evaluation guideline for tissue is exceed. LOE No. 5430, which was assessed in last assessment cycle, shows none of 35 fish tissue samples exceedances. Thus, the LOE No. 23499, a health advisory, can't be used to show that this water body is impaired, and therefore, it is not included in the final use rating.LOE No. 30093 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidline of sediment fraction for selenium was available.LOE No. 46434 is combined with LOE No. 5430 to determine a final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 39 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and none of 20 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded.   468332012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) SeleniumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved200Twenty water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 10/2005 through 10/2008 at 4 locations along the Salton Sea. Of these total samples , none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: For all surface waters that are tributaries to the Salton Sea, a four day average value of selenium shall not exceed 5 ug/L (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected at stations: Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2, Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, and Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09.Data were collected 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial302812012EnterococcusSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Fourteen of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Fourteen of 15 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   49082010State Reviewed EnterococcusNon-Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal1311Thirteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 4/2003, at 7 locations in the Alamo River. Of these total samples, 11 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 5/06/2002, 5/07/2002, 5/08/2002, 9/30/2002, 10/01/2002, 10/02/2002, and 4/09/2003 from all seven locations (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In waters designated for noncontact water recreation (REC II) the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 500 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, Drop 8, Drop 6A, Drop 6, Drop 3, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road bridge.Thirteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed in May and October 2002, and April 2003 at the International Boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002, although samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 5/06/2002 through 4/09/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial302812012EnterococcusSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Fourteen of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Fourteen of 15 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   48972010State Reviewed EnterococcusWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal1312Thirteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 4/2003 at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples , 12 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 5/06/2002, 5/08/2002, 10/01/2002, 10/02/2002, and 4/09/2003 from all seven locations (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In waters designated for water contact recreation (REC I) the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 100 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, Drop 8, Drop 6A, Drop 6, Drop 3, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road bridge.Thirteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed in May and October 2002, from all locations. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round Two additional samples were collected in April 2003 from the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton sea locations. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 5/08/2002 through 4/09/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial302812012EnterococcusSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Fourteen of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Fourteen of 15 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   332422012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23280EnterococcusWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNone22Two of the two samples collected exceeded the entercoccus objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008Not SpecifiedThe entercoccus concentration shall not exceed more than 100/100ml. Basin Plan for the Colorado River Basin.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  The sample was collected from the Alamo River Outlet station 723ARGRB1 and Alamo River at International Boundary station 723ARINTL.The samples were collected in October 2005. SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218192012Escherichia coli (E. coli)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Six of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Six of 14 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   332412012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23279Escherichia coli (E. coli)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNone11The one sample collected exccede the E. coli objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008Not SpecifiedThe E. coli concentration shall not exceed more than 400/100ml. Basin Plan for the Colorado River Basin.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  The sample was collected from the Alamo River Outlet station 723ARGRB1.The sample was collected on October 26, 2005. SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218192012Escherichia coli (E. coli)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Six of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Six of 14 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   49012010State Reviewed Escherichia coli (E. coli)Non-Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal131Thirteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 4/2003 at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, 1 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedence were found in a sample collected on 10/01/2002 from Drop 10 (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In waters designated for noncontact water recreation (REC II) the maximum allowable E. coli density is 2000 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, Drop 8, Drop 6A, Drop 6, Drop 3, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road bridge.Thirteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed in May and October 2002, and April 2003. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The exceedence was found in a sample collected on 10/01/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218192012Escherichia coli (E. coli)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Six of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Six of 14 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   48802010State Reviewed Escherichia coli (E. coli)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal135Thirteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 4/2003 at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples , 5 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 5/08/2002, 10/01/2002, and 4/09/2003 from four different locations (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In waters designated for water contact recreation (REC I) the maximum allowable E. coli density is 400 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, Drop 8, Drop 6A, Drop 6, Drop 3, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road Bridge.Thirteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, usually in May and October, from 5/2002 through 4/2003 at the International Boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Not all locations were sampled each sampling round. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 5/08/2002 through 4/09/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184142012SeleniumOut-of-state sourceDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are associated with this decision. Line of Evidence No. 2903 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. Line of Evidence No. 2904 has a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because of high detection limits. The data in the Line of Evidence No. 2904 cannot be used in the Final Use Rating because all of the data was below the detection limit, but the detection limit was above the criteria. No evaluation guideline for the fraction of selenium associated with sediment could be found that protects human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters and meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because of this, Line of Evidence No. 30020 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information. Eight of samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 46060 and 5385 are combined to determine final use rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At minimum, eight of 12 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  Selenium originates from Upper Basin Portion of Colorado River. Elevated fish tissue levels. For 2006, selenium was moved by USEPA from the being addressed list back to the 303(d) list pending completion and USEPA approval of a TMDL.460602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671299SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, Tilapia spp. and flathead catfish. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for Tilapia spp. and flathead catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenium in fish tissue is 7.4 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A background dietary consumption rate of 0.114 mg/day is applied for this micronutrient.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at Drop 6A Holtville Drain - 723ARDP6A, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River/Brawley - 723ARBRAW]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184142012SeleniumOut-of-state sourceDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are associated with this decision. Line of Evidence No. 2903 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. Line of Evidence No. 2904 has a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because of high detection limits. The data in the Line of Evidence No. 2904 cannot be used in the Final Use Rating because all of the data was below the detection limit, but the detection limit was above the criteria. No evaluation guideline for the fraction of selenium associated with sediment could be found that protects human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters and meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because of this, Line of Evidence No. 30020 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information. Eight of samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 46060 and 5385 are combined to determine final use rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At minimum, eight of 12 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  Selenium originates from Upper Basin Portion of Colorado River. Elevated fish tissue levels. For 2006, selenium was moved by USEPA from the being addressed list back to the 303(d) list pending completion and USEPA approval of a TMDL.300202010State Reviewed SeleniumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal20 Twenty sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at seven locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Selenium for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, Drop 8, Drop 6A, Drop 6, Drop 3, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Twenty sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184142012SeleniumOut-of-state sourceDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are associated with this decision. Line of Evidence No. 2903 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. Line of Evidence No. 2904 has a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because of high detection limits. The data in the Line of Evidence No. 2904 cannot be used in the Final Use Rating because all of the data was below the detection limit, but the detection limit was above the criteria. No evaluation guideline for the fraction of selenium associated with sediment could be found that protects human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters and meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because of this, Line of Evidence No. 30020 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information. Eight of samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 46060 and 5385 are combined to determine final use rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At minimum, eight of 12 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  Selenium originates from Upper Basin Portion of Colorado River. Elevated fish tissue levels. For 2006, selenium was moved by USEPA from the being addressed list back to the 303(d) list pending completion and USEPA approval of a TMDL.53852010State Reviewed SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal170Twenty-one fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Seven fish fillet and 1 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because constituent was not analyzed in the sample. The 14 fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 9/1987 through 11/2000 at four locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 7400 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Seven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-82, 1987-88, 1990, (2)1993. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1994, and 2000. Ten channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-82, 1987, 1993, 1996-98. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1994. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Four whole fish composite samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia, mosquitofish, and red shiner were collected. One red swamp crayfish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1980. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One red shiner whole fish composite was collected in the year 1985. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184142012SeleniumOut-of-state sourceDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are associated with this decision. Line of Evidence No. 2903 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. Line of Evidence No. 2904 has a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because of high detection limits. The data in the Line of Evidence No. 2904 cannot be used in the Final Use Rating because all of the data was below the detection limit, but the detection limit was above the criteria. No evaluation guideline for the fraction of selenium associated with sediment could be found that protects human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters and meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because of this, Line of Evidence No. 30020 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information. Eight of samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 46060 and 5385 are combined to determine final use rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At minimum, eight of 12 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  Selenium originates from Upper Basin Portion of Colorado River. Elevated fish tissue levels. For 2006, selenium was moved by USEPA from the being addressed list back to the 303(d) list pending completion and USEPA approval of a TMDL.48722010State Reviewed SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved242Twenty-four water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples , 2 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 5/03/2004, and 5/09/2005, from the International Boundary location (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: For all surface waters that are tributaries to the Salton Sea, a one hour average value of selenium shall not exceed .02 mg/L (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, Drop 8, Drop 6A, Drop 6, Drop 3, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.Twenty-four water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002.The exceedences were found in samples collected from 5/03/2004 through 5/09/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184142012SeleniumOut-of-state sourceDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are associated with this decision. Line of Evidence No. 2903 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. Line of Evidence No. 2904 has a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because of high detection limits. The data in the Line of Evidence No. 2904 cannot be used in the Final Use Rating because all of the data was below the detection limit, but the detection limit was above the criteria. No evaluation guideline for the fraction of selenium associated with sediment could be found that protects human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters and meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because of this, Line of Evidence No. 30020 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information. Eight of samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 46060 and 5385 are combined to determine final use rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At minimum, eight of 12 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  Selenium originates from Upper Basin Portion of Colorado River. Elevated fish tissue levels. For 2006, selenium was moved by USEPA from the being addressed list back to the 303(d) list pending completion and USEPA approval of a TMDL.29042006State ReviewedNJK: Even though no samples exceed the criteria, the Use support rating is insufficient information because the detection limit was above the criteria.SeleniumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone70Data were collected by the RWQCB on 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. All samples were non-detects with a detection limit of 100 ppb which is above the water quality objective and will not be used for the purpose of assessing compliance with the CTR (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCTR: freshwater acute maximum is 20 ppb, freshwater chronic maximum is 5 ppb.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected the following Alamo River sampling stations: AR-B (at the International Boundary), AR-D10 (Lower Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #10), AR-D8 (Central Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #8), AR-D6A (Holtville Main Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6A), AR-D6 (Rose Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6), AR-D3 (Central Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #3), and at AR-GRB.All samples were collected on 6/21/2001. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184142012SeleniumOut-of-state sourceDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are associated with this decision. Line of Evidence No. 2903 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. Line of Evidence No. 2904 has a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because of high detection limits. The data in the Line of Evidence No. 2904 cannot be used in the Final Use Rating because all of the data was below the detection limit, but the detection limit was above the criteria. No evaluation guideline for the fraction of selenium associated with sediment could be found that protects human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters and meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because of this, Line of Evidence No. 30020 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information. Eight of samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 46060 and 5385 are combined to determine final use rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At minimum, eight of 12 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  Selenium originates from Upper Basin Portion of Colorado River. Elevated fish tissue levels. For 2006, selenium was moved by USEPA from the being addressed list back to the 303(d) list pending completion and USEPA approval of a TMDL.29032006State ReviewedNJK: This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.SeleniumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone00Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not Specified    UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184142012SeleniumOut-of-state sourceDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are associated with this decision. Line of Evidence No. 2903 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. Line of Evidence No. 2904 has a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because of high detection limits. The data in the Line of Evidence No. 2904 cannot be used in the Final Use Rating because all of the data was below the detection limit, but the detection limit was above the criteria. No evaluation guideline for the fraction of selenium associated with sediment could be found that protects human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters and meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because of this, Line of Evidence No. 30020 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information. Eight of samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 46060 and 5385 are combined to determine final use rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At minimum, eight of 12 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  Selenium originates from Upper Basin Portion of Colorado River. Elevated fish tissue levels. For 2006, selenium was moved by USEPA from the being addressed list back to the 303(d) list pending completion and USEPA approval of a TMDL.468362012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved128Twelve water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 10/2005 through 10/2008 at 2 locations along the Alamo River . Of these total samples, eight samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: For all surface waters that are tributaries to the Salton Sea, a four day average value of selenium shall not exceed 5 ug/L (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected at stations: Alamo River Outlet to the Salton Sea (723 ARGRB1) and at the international boundary (723 ARINTL).Data were collected 10/25/2005-10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.460832012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671308Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet11Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.323902012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21785DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one sample collected was 1.686 ug/kg and did not exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDD in freshwater sediments is 28.0 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet (719CVSCOT).One sample was collected on 10/29/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.345242012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 26186DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00The detection limit for DDT(o,p) is 0.001 ug/l, and the reporting limit for that is 0.002 ug/l. Since the WQS is smaller than the reporting limit, none of samples can be counted. In addition the detection limit for DDT(p,p') is 0.002 ug/l and the reporting limit is 0.005 ug/l, none of the samples can be counted. The water body was assessed for the sum of DDT(o,p') and DDT(p,p').1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 4,4' DDT criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.001 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 719CVSC52 (Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)) and 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet).Samples collected between 10/26/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.329582012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21854DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Zero of 5 samples collected for Total DDTs exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Total DDTs (DDD + DDE + DDT) in freshwater sediments is 572 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT.The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.329372012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21848DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Zero of 5 samples collected for Sum DDT exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDT (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 62.9 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT.The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.329312012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21842DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Zero of 5 samples collected for Sum DDE exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDE (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 31.3 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT.The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.328892012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21829DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Zero of 5 samples collected for Sum DDD exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDD (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 28.0 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT.The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.323932012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21788DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one sample collected was 28.572 ug/kg and did not exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Total DDTs in freshwater sediments is 572 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet (719CVSCOT).One sample was collected on 10/29/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.323922012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21787DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one sample collected was 0.906 ug/kg and did not exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDT in freshwater sediments is 62.9 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet (719CVSCOT).One sample was collected on 10/29/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.323912012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21786DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one sample collected was 25.98 ug/kg and did not exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDE in freshwater sediments is 31.3 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet (719CVSCOT).One sample was collected on 10/29/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.467582012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal1212Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, all fish samples collected at 1 location exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. Exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986; 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 5/20/1986; 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 2 tilapia whole fish composite samples collected on 10/30/1996 and 12/08/1999; 1 tilapia fish fillet samples collected on 11/17/1997; 1 redbelly tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995; 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995, and; 3 red shiner whole fish composite samples collected on 9/16/1992, 10/24/1995, and 11/06/2000 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/20/1986 through 11/06/2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.49942010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.54332010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal1211Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 4 fish fillet samples and 7 whole fish samples collected at 1 location exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. Exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986; 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 5/20/1986; 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 2 tilapia whole fish composite samples collected on 10/30/1996, and 12/08/1999; 1 redbelly tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995; 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995, and; 3 red shiner whole fish composite samples collected on 9/16/1992, 10/24/1995, and 11/06/2000 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 21 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/20/1986 through 11/06/2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.55872010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal122Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 2 fish fillet samples collected at 1 location exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. Exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986, and; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 5/20/1986 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 1000 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. Exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/20/1986 through 5/21/1986. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223522012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5433 is replaced by the LOE No. 46758, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46758 is combined with LOE No. 46083 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5587 is combined with LOE No. 45902 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thirteen of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Thirteen of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and two of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for DDT only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.459022012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671309Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside221232012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5434 is replaced by the LOE No. 46756, which is assessed using the current guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46756 is combined with LOE No. 45904 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. All LOEs received a use rating of insufficient in this pollutant do not have enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met, so they received a use rating of insufficient. Seven of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seven of seven fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.. This listing for Dieldrin only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.467562012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal66Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. Three fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 2 fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 2 fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples collected at 1 location exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. Exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986; 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 1 tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 12/08/1999; 1 redbelly tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995, and; 2 red shiner whole fish composite samples collected on 10/24/1995, and 11/06/2000 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/21/1986 through 11/06/2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside221232012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5434 is replaced by the LOE No. 46756, which is assessed using the current guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46756 is combined with LOE No. 45904 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. All LOEs received a use rating of insufficient in this pollutant do not have enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met, so they received a use rating of insufficient. Seven of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seven of seven fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.. This listing for Dieldrin only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.459052012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671312DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside221232012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5434 is replaced by the LOE No. 46756, which is assessed using the current guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46756 is combined with LOE No. 45904 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. All LOEs received a use rating of insufficient in this pollutant do not have enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met, so they received a use rating of insufficient. Seven of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seven of seven fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.. This listing for Dieldrin only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.459042012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671311DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet11Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside221232012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5434 is replaced by the LOE No. 46756, which is assessed using the current guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46756 is combined with LOE No. 45904 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. All LOEs received a use rating of insufficient in this pollutant do not have enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met, so they received a use rating of insufficient. Seven of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seven of seven fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.. This listing for Dieldrin only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.355022012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168293DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for dieldrin is 61.8 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside221232012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5434 is replaced by the LOE No. 46756, which is assessed using the current guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46756 is combined with LOE No. 45904 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. All LOEs received a use rating of insufficient in this pollutant do not have enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met, so they received a use rating of insufficient. Seven of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seven of seven fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.. This listing for Dieldrin only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.353232012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167761DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for dieldrin is 61.8 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside221232012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5434 is replaced by the LOE No. 46756, which is assessed using the current guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46756 is combined with LOE No. 45904 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. All LOEs received a use rating of insufficient in this pollutant do not have enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met, so they received a use rating of insufficient. Seven of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seven of seven fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.. This listing for Dieldrin only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.353062012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167760DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Dieldrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside221232012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5434 is replaced by the LOE No. 46756, which is assessed using the current guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46756 is combined with LOE No. 45904 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. All LOEs received a use rating of insufficient in this pollutant do not have enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met, so they received a use rating of insufficient. Seven of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seven of seven fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.. This listing for Dieldrin only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.352802012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167748DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Seven samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Dieldrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside221232012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5434 is replaced by the LOE No. 46756, which is assessed using the current guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46756 is combined with LOE No. 45904 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. All LOEs received a use rating of insufficient in this pollutant do not have enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met, so they received a use rating of insufficient. Seven of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seven of seven fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.. This listing for Dieldrin only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.55982010State Reviewed DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal120Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside221232012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5434 is replaced by the LOE No. 46756, which is assessed using the current guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46756 is combined with LOE No. 45904 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. All LOEs received a use rating of insufficient in this pollutant do not have enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met, so they received a use rating of insufficient. Seven of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seven of seven fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.. This listing for Dieldrin only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.54342010State Reviewed DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal66Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. Three fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 2 fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 2 fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples collected at 1 location exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. Exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986; 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 1 tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 12/08/1999; 1 redbelly tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995, and; 2 red shiner whole fish composite samples collected on 10/24/1995, and 11/06/2000 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 0.46 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/21/1986 through 11/06/2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside221232012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5434 is replaced by the LOE No. 46756, which is assessed using the current guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46756 is combined with LOE No. 45904 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. All LOEs received a use rating of insufficient in this pollutant do not have enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met, so they received a use rating of insufficient. Seven of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seven of seven fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.. This listing for Dieldrin only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.49942010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside221232012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 5434 is replaced by the LOE No. 46756, which is assessed using the current guideline, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46756 is combined with LOE No. 45904 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. All LOEs received a use rating of insufficient in this pollutant do not have enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met, so they received a use rating of insufficient. Seven of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seven of seven fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.. This listing for Dieldrin only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.51022010State Reviewed Dieldrin | Endrin | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal90Nine sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, and 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Nine sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location in. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside221602012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOEs 45918 and 5435 were combined to determine a final use rating. Five of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of five fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for PCBs only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.54352010State Reviewed PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal44Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. Four fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 1 fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 1 fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish samples collected at 1 location exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. Exceedances were found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986, 1 tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 12/08/1999, and 2 red shiner whole fish composite samples collected on 10/24/1995, and 11/06/2000 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 3.6 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/21/1986 through 11/06/2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside221602012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOEs 45918 and 5435 were combined to determine a final use rating. Five of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of five fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for PCBs only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.459182012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671325PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet11Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for polychlorinated biphenyls in fish tissue is 2.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside221602012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOEs 45918 and 5435 were combined to determine a final use rating. Five of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of five fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for PCBs only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.334192012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23830PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Zero of 5 samples collected for Total PCBs exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total PCB is 676 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following stations 719CVSC52 (Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)) and 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet).The samples were collected on 10/26/2005, 5/2/2006, 10/22/2007 and 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside221602012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOEs 45918 and 5435 were combined to determine a final use rating. Five of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of five fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for PCBs only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.334122012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23411PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20None of the 2 samples exceeded the criterion continuous concentration for total PCB. The water body was assessed for the 3 aroclors that were contained within the data set and they include aroclor 1248, aroclor 1254, and aroclor 1260.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe total PCB criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.014 ug/L. This value corresponds to the sum of aroclors 1242, 1254, 1221, 1232, 1248, 1260, and 1016 (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at station 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet).Samples collected between 4/22/2008 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside221602012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOEs 45918 and 5435 were combined to determine a final use rating. Five of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of five fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for PCBs only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.332312012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23849PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Zero of 1 sample collected for Total PCBs exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total PCB is 676 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet).The samples were collected on 10/29/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside221602012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOEs 45918 and 5435 were combined to determine a final use rating. Five of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of five fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for PCBs only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.459192012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671326PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total PCB concentration of 500 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside221602012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOEs 45918 and 5435 were combined to determine a final use rating. Five of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of five fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for PCBs only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.56442010State Reviewed PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal120Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 500 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside191582012ToxapheneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2877 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5655. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. LOEs 45922 and 5655 are combined to determine the use rating. Seven of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seven of seven fish tisse samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, six of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for toxaphene only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.459222012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671329ToxapheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Toxaphene concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside191582012ToxapheneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2877 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5655. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. LOEs 45922 and 5655 are combined to determine the use rating. Seven of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seven of seven fish tisse samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, six of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for toxaphene only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.459212012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671328ToxapheneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. One composite (15 fish per composite) was generated from one species: Tilapia spp. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for toxaphene in fish tissue is 4.3 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside191582012ToxapheneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2877 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5655. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. LOEs 45922 and 5655 are combined to determine the use rating. Seven of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seven of seven fish tisse samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, six of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for toxaphene only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.56552010State Reviewed ToxapheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal126Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 3 fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish samples collected at 1 location exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. Exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986; 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 1 tilapia whole fish composite sample collected on 10/30/1996; 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995, and; 1 red shiner whole fish composite sample collected on 11/06/2000 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. Exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/21/1986 through 11/06/2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside191582012ToxapheneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2877 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5655. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. LOEs 45922 and 5655 are combined to determine the use rating. Seven of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seven of seven fish tisse samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, six of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for toxaphene only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.54362010State Reviewed ToxapheneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal77Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. Two fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 3 fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 3 fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples collected at 1 location exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. Exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986; 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 10/20/1987; 2 tilapia whole fish composite samples collected on 10/30/1996, and 12/08/1999; 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 10/24/1995, and; 1 red shiner whole fish composite sample collected on 11/06/2000 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 6.1 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/21/1986 through 11/06/2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside191582012ToxapheneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2877 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5655. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. LOEs 45922 and 5655 are combined to determine the use rating. Seven of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seven of seven fish tisse samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, six of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for toxaphene only applies to a 2 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Lincoln Street to the Salton Sea.28772006State Reviewed ToxapheneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal83Three out of 8 samples exceeded. Four whole fish composite samples of red shiner, 3 whole fish composite samples of tilapia, and one composite sample of redbelly tilapia were collected. Red shiner were collected in 1992, 1995, and 2000-01. Tilapia were collected in 1996, 1999, and 2002. Redbelly tilapia were collected in 1995. The guideline was exceeded in 1996 tilapia and 2000-01 red shiner (TSMP, 2002).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedColorado River Basin RWQCB Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be presenting concentration that adversely affect beneficial uses.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)100 ng/g [NAS Guideline (whole fish)].1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)The Coachella Valley Storm Channel from Lincoln Street to the outlet into the Salton Sea only. One station located at foot of Lincoln Street was sampled and was in exceedance.Samples were collected annually in 1992, 1995-96, 1999, and 2000-02. Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1992-93 and 1994-95 Data Reports.Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 1996-2000. Department of Fish and Game.Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 2001-2002. Department of Fish and Game. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial183002012SeleniumAgricultural Return FlowsDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 46244 is combined with LOE No. 5443 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Three of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of six water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  Selenium originates from Upper Basin Portion of Colorado River. Elevated fish tissue levels.49572010State Reviewed SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October of 2002 at 3 locations along Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: For all surface waters that are tributaries to the Salton Sea, a one hour average value of selenium shall not exceed .02 mg/L (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed from all sites twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial183002012SeleniumAgricultural Return FlowsDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 46244 is combined with LOE No. 5443 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Three of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of six water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  Selenium originates from Upper Basin Portion of Colorado River. Elevated fish tissue levels.54432010State Reviewed SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal470Twenty-three fish fillet samples and 24 whole fish samples were taken at 19 locations in Imperial Valley drains. The samples were generally collected from 10/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 7400 ppb to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, Warren drain, Dixie drain No.1, Dixie drain No.3, Dixie drain No.5, Forgetmenot drain, and West Side drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-three fish fillet samples of carp, tilapia, channel catfish, flathead catfish, spiny soft shell turtle, redbelly tilapia, and Mozambique tilapia were collected. Seven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, (2)1986, (3)1990 and 1999. Three carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1986, 1989-90. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Three Mozambique tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in year (3)1986. Twenty-four whole fish composite samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Fifteen mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1985, (2)1986, 1989, (2)1990, (4)1991, 1995-96, (3)2000. Nine sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in the years (3)1986, (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, 2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial183002012SeleniumAgricultural Return FlowsDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 46244 is combined with LOE No. 5443 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Three of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of six water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  Selenium originates from Upper Basin Portion of Colorado River. Elevated fish tissue levels.462442012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671450SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. Seventeen composites (1 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenium in fish tissue is 7.4 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A background dietary consumption rate of 0.114 mg/day is applied for this micronutrient.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial183002012SeleniumAgricultural Return FlowsDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 46244 is combined with LOE No. 5443 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Three of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of six water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  Selenium originates from Upper Basin Portion of Colorado River. Elevated fish tissue levels.302742010State Reviewed SeleniumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal5 Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October of 2002 at 3 locations along Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Selenium for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at all three sampling locations. In October of 2002 sediment samples were collected and analyzed at the Niland 4 and Trifolium TD1 sampling locations only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial183002012SeleniumAgricultural Return FlowsDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. LOE No. 46244 is combined with LOE No. 5443 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Three of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of six water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  Selenium originates from Upper Basin Portion of Colorado River. Elevated fish tissue levels.258142010State Reviewed SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved63Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October of 2002 at 3 locations along Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, three exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedances were found in samples collected on 5/08/2002, 5/09/2002, and 5/13/2002 at the three locations (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: For all surface waters that are tributaries to the Salton Sea, a four day average value of selenium shall not exceed .005 mg/L (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed from all sites twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial193882012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNNThis pollutant is considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Sixteen samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Fourteen water samples were collected but not used in the assessment because the laboratory method detection limit was above the objective, therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. At a minimum, 16 out of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   351662012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167945Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twelve samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Hexachlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00077 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial193882012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNNThis pollutant is considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Sixteen samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Fourteen water samples were collected but not used in the assessment because the laboratory method detection limit was above the objective, therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. At a minimum, 16 out of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   54222010State Reviewed Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal4316Forty-one fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 2 locations in the river. Three fish fillet samples could not be used in this assessment because the constituent was not analyzed in the sample. The 38 fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Of these total samples, 14 fish fillet samples and 2 whole fish samples collected at two locations exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value. At the Westmorland location exceedances were found in; 6 channel catfish fillet composite samples collected on 5/09/1980, (2)4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 10/10/1985, and 9/03/1987; 2 channel catfish single fish fillet samples collected on 11/18/1988, and 8/03/1990, and; 3 carp fillet composite samples collected on 4/22/1982, 5/24/1984, and 10/09/1985. At the International Boundary location exceedances were found in; 2 carp fillet composite samples collected on 7/31/1990, and 11/02/1994; 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 7/20/1989; 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 10/01/1985, and; 1 tilapia single whole fish sample collected on 5/17/1984 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 20 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following New River locations: near the International Boundary, and near Westmorland, CA..Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Forty-one fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp, flathead catfish, tilapia, spiny soft shelled turtle, and yellow bullhead were collected. Fifteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1979, (4)1980, 1981, (2)1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1991, 1995 and 1997-98. Five channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1988, 1990, 1992-93. Ten carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-86, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994. Five carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1989, 1994, 1997, and 1999. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1996. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1991-92. One spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. Five whole fish samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia and sailfin molly & mosquitofish were collected. Three red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1980. One tilapia single whole fish sample was collected in the year 1984. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/09/1980 through 11/02/1994. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial193882012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNNThis pollutant is considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Sixteen samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Fourteen water samples were collected but not used in the assessment because the laboratory method detection limit was above the objective, therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. At a minimum, 16 out of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   358772012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168367Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Two samples were collected but not used in the assessment because the laboratory method detection limit was above the objective, therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Hexachlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00077 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial193882012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNNThis pollutant is considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Sixteen samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Fourteen water samples were collected but not used in the assessment because the laboratory method detection limit was above the objective, therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. At a minimum, 16 out of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   462012012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671473Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobenzene. One composite (3 fish per composite) were generated from one species: channel catfish.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue is 2.8 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 11/5/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183532012MercurySource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Thiirteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Mercury consistent with Listing Policy section 6.1.5.9. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2926 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5563. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Seveal LOE sets are combined for a use rating purpose: LOE Nos. 5042, 35631, and 5204; LOE Nos. 5242, 2925, and 26683; and all four sediment LOEs.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems. Two of 131 water samples exceeded the National Recommended Criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Six of 22 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   52422010State Reviewed MercuryWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Seven samples were taken at 1 location on the river. Three water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 4 acceptable water quality samples were collected from 9/1978 through 7/1980. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NRWQC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataNational Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.4 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2002).1.National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA  Samples were collected at the following New River locations: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca.Seven samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 9/1978 through 7/1980. One was collected in 1978, 2 samples were collected in 1979, and 4 samples were collected in 1980. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183532012MercurySource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Thiirteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Mercury consistent with Listing Policy section 6.1.5.9. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2926 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5563. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Seveal LOE sets are combined for a use rating purpose: LOE Nos. 5042, 35631, and 5204; LOE Nos. 5242, 2925, and 26683; and all four sediment LOEs.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems. Two of 131 water samples exceeded the National Recommended Criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Six of 22 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   53292010State Reviewed MercuryWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the river, collected on 7/11/1986. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 1.06 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following New River location: USGS Station No. 10254970 near the International Boundary in Calexico, Ca.One sample was collected on 7/11/1986. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183532012MercurySource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Thiirteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Mercury consistent with Listing Policy section 6.1.5.9. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2926 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5563. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Seveal LOE sets are combined for a use rating purpose: LOE Nos. 5042, 35631, and 5204; LOE Nos. 5242, 2925, and 26683; and all four sediment LOEs.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems. Two of 131 water samples exceeded the National Recommended Criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Six of 22 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   55632010State Reviewed MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal226Twenty-nine fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples were taken at 2 locations in the river. Seven fish fillet and 4 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the constituent was not analyzed in the samples. The 22 fish fillet samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/1998 at two locations. Of these total samples, 6 fish fillet samples collected at one location exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value. At the International Boundary location exceedances were found in; 4 carp fillet composite samples collected on 7/31/1990, 12/18/1991, 6/16/1993, and 11/02/1994; 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 7/20/1989, and; 1 yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample collected on 7/20/1989 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 0.3 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following New River locations: near the International Boundary, and near Westmorland, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty nine fish fillet samples of carp, tilapia, grass carp, spiny soft shelled turtle, channel catfish, and yellow bullhead were collected. Six carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1982, 1986, 1990-91, and 1993-94. Four carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, 1994, 1997, and 1999. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1996. One grass carp fillet composite sample was collected the year 1987. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1991-1992. One spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet samples was collected in the year 1987. Nine channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1979-80, (2)1982, 1987, 1991, 1995, and 1997-98. Four channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1990, and 1992-93. One yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. Four whole fish composite samples of red swamp crayfish, and sailfin molly & mosquitofish were collected. Three red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1978-80. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite samples was collected in the year 1985. Exceedances were found in samples collected from 7/20/1989 through 11/02/1994. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183532012MercurySource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Thiirteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Mercury consistent with Listing Policy section 6.1.5.9. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2926 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5563. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Seveal LOE sets are combined for a use rating purpose: LOE Nos. 5042, 35631, and 5204; LOE Nos. 5242, 2925, and 26683; and all four sediment LOEs.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems. Two of 131 water samples exceeded the National Recommended Criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Six of 22 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   266832010State Reviewed MercuryWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NRWQC Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.4 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2002).1.National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183532012MercurySource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Thiirteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Mercury consistent with Listing Policy section 6.1.5.9. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2926 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5563. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Seveal LOE sets are combined for a use rating purpose: LOE Nos. 5042, 35631, and 5204; LOE Nos. 5242, 2925, and 26683; and all four sediment LOEs.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems. Two of 131 water samples exceeded the National Recommended Criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Six of 22 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   356312012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167981MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Mercury criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.051 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183532012MercurySource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Thiirteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Mercury consistent with Listing Policy section 6.1.5.9. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2926 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5563. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Seveal LOE sets are combined for a use rating purpose: LOE Nos. 5042, 35631, and 5204; LOE Nos. 5242, 2925, and 26683; and all four sediment LOEs.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems. Two of 131 water samples exceeded the National Recommended Criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Six of 22 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   356762012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167994MercuryWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for mercury is 1.06 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183532012MercurySource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Thiirteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Mercury consistent with Listing Policy section 6.1.5.9. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2926 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5563. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Seveal LOE sets are combined for a use rating purpose: LOE Nos. 5042, 35631, and 5204; LOE Nos. 5242, 2925, and 26683; and all four sediment LOEs.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems. Two of 131 water samples exceeded the National Recommended Criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Six of 22 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   358712012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168306MercuryWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for mercury is 1.06 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183532012MercurySource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Thiirteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Mercury consistent with Listing Policy section 6.1.5.9. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2926 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5563. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Seveal LOE sets are combined for a use rating purpose: LOE Nos. 5042, 35631, and 5204; LOE Nos. 5242, 2925, and 26683; and all four sediment LOEs.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems. Two of 131 water samples exceeded the National Recommended Criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Six of 22 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   462022012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671474MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. The one composite could not be used in the assessment due to a total fish length that did not fall within lengths noted in the guideline.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish (150 - 500 mm; fillet wet weight) is 0.20 mg/kg.1.Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 11/5/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183532012MercurySource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Thiirteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Mercury consistent with Listing Policy section 6.1.5.9. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2926 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5563. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Seveal LOE sets are combined for a use rating purpose: LOE Nos. 5042, 35631, and 5204; LOE Nos. 5242, 2925, and 26683; and all four sediment LOEs.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems. Two of 131 water samples exceeded the National Recommended Criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Six of 22 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   52042010State Reviewed MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal22Seven water samples were taken at 1 location on the river. Five water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 2 acceptable water quality samples were collected on 5/30/1979 and 7/24/1980 from near Westmorland, CA. Both samples exceeded the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.051 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following New River locations: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca.Seven samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 9/1978 through 7/1980. One sample was collected in 1978, 2 samples were collected in 1979, and 4 samples were collected in 1980. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 5/30/1979 and 7/24/1980. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183532012MercurySource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Thiirteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Mercury consistent with Listing Policy section 6.1.5.9. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2926 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5563. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Seveal LOE sets are combined for a use rating purpose: LOE Nos. 5042, 35631, and 5204; LOE Nos. 5242, 2925, and 26683; and all four sediment LOEs.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems. Two of 131 water samples exceeded the National Recommended Criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Six of 22 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   51072010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183532012MercurySource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Thiirteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Mercury consistent with Listing Policy section 6.1.5.9. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2926 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5563. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Seveal LOE sets are combined for a use rating purpose: LOE Nos. 5042, 35631, and 5204; LOE Nos. 5242, 2925, and 26683; and all four sediment LOEs.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems. Two of 131 water samples exceeded the National Recommended Criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Six of 22 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   50422010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183532012MercurySource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Thiirteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Mercury consistent with Listing Policy section 6.1.5.9. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2926 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5563. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Seveal LOE sets are combined for a use rating purpose: LOE Nos. 5042, 35631, and 5204; LOE Nos. 5242, 2925, and 26683; and all four sediment LOEs.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems. Two of 131 water samples exceeded the National Recommended Criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Six of 22 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   29252006State Reviewed MercuryWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved1132Samples were collected monthly by the RWQCB from June 1995 to December 2003. Of the 98 monthly samples, 2 were in exceedance of the chronic criteria and 1 was in exceedance of the acute criteria. Samples were also collected by the RWQCB at 3 locations from 6/11/1996 to 12/4/1996. None of these 6 samples were in exceedance. Samples were also collected by the RWQCB from 10/31/1999 to 11/6/1999. One of these 9 samples was in exceedance of the acute criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUSEPA: freshwater chronic maximum = 0.77 ppb as a 4-day average and freshwater acute maximum = 1.4 ppb.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  The New River from the International Boundary to the USGS Station in Calexico only. The 98 and 9 samples were collected on the New River at the International Boundary. The 6 samples were collected on the New River at the International Boundary at the International Drain, and at the Puente Madero.The 98 samples were collected monthly from June 1995 through December 2003. The 6 samples were collected on 6 days from 6/11/1996 to 12/4/1996. The 9 samples were collected monthly from 10/31/1999 to 11/6/1999.For the 98 samples, temperature, pH, D.O., and conductivity were also measured.Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183532012MercurySource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under sections 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Thiirteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Mercury consistent with Listing Policy section 6.1.5.9. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2926 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5563. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Seveal LOE sets are combined for a use rating purpose: LOE Nos. 5042, 35631, and 5204; LOE Nos. 5242, 2925, and 26683; and all four sediment LOEs.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems. Two of 131 water samples exceeded the National Recommended Criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Six of 22 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   29262006State Reviewed MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal122Two out of 12 samples exceeded. A total of 7 filet composite and individual samples of channel catfish, 4 composite and individual samples of carp, and one composite of tilapia were collected. Channel catfish were collected in 1992-93, 1995, 1997-98, and 2001-02. Carp were collected in 1993-94 and 1997. Tilapia were collected in 1996. Two composite samples of carp in 1993-94 exceeded the guideline (TSMP, 2002).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedColorado River Basin RWQCB Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be presenting concentration that adversely affect beneficial uses.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)OEHHA Screening Value 0.3 ug/g.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)The New River from the International Boundary to the USGS Station in Calexico only. Two stations on the New River were samples: at the gauging station about one mile downstream of the Lack Road Bridge near Westmorland and near the international boundary.Samples were collected during the period of 1992-1998 and 2001-02. Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1992-93 and 1994-95 Data Reports.Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 1996-2000. Department of Fish and Game.Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 2001-2002. Department of Fish and Game. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial180842012NutrientsAgricultural Return Flows | Major Municipal Point Source-dry and/or wet weather discharge | Out-of-state sourceDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original   2019   YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.  Regional Board proposes to establish TMDL in cooperation with U.S. EPA and Mexico.43882006State ReviewedNJK: This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.NutrientsWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNot Recorded00Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUnspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Unspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial294152012SeleniumSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 46217 and 5426 are combined for a use rating determination. Fourteen of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Fourteen of 117 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   462172012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671478SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. One composite (3 fish per composite) were generated from one species: channel catfish.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenium in fish tissue is 7.4 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A background dietary consumption rate of 0.114 mg/day is applied for this micronutrient.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 11/5/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial294152012SeleniumSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 46217 and 5426 are combined for a use rating determination. Fourteen of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Fourteen of 117 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   29272006State Reviewed SeleniumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal11714Samples were collected by the RWQCB from June 1995 through December 2003. Of the 98 monthly samples, 8 were in exceedance of the chronic criteria and 2 were in exceedance of the USEPA: freshwater acute maximum. Four samples were also collected during the spring and fall of 2002 and numerical data was generated from them. All four samples exceeded the CTR: 5 μg/L criterion. Samples were also collected by the RWQCB at three locations from 6/11/96 through 12/4/96. None of these 6 samples were in exceedance of the USEPA: freshwater acute maximum. Samples were collected by the RWQCB from 10/31/99 through 11/6/99. None of these 9 samples were in exceedance of the USEPA: freshwater acute maximum (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUSEPA: freshwater chronic maximum = 5 ppb as a 4-day average.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected on the New River at the International Boundary. The 6 samples were collected on the New River at the International Boundary, a the International Drain, and at Puente Madero. The 4 samples were samples at 2 stations, one at the International Boundary with Mexico and the other at the outlet (mouth) of the New River into the Salton Sea.The 98 samples were collected monthly from June 1995 through December 2003. The 6 samples were collected on 6 days from 6/11/1996 to 12/4/1996, the 9 samples were collected monthly from 10/31/1999 to 11/6/1999, and the 4 samples were collected during the spring and fall of 2002.For the 98 samples, temperature, pH, D.O., and conductivity were also measured.Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided. And the SWAMP QAPP was also used. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial294152012SeleniumSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 46217 and 5426 are combined for a use rating determination. Fourteen of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Fourteen of 117 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   48732010State Reviewed SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved152Fifteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples , 2 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 5/09/2005, and 5/10/2005, from the two locations (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: For all surface waters that are tributaries to the Salton Sea, a one hour average value of selenium shall not exceed .02 mg/L (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. An additional sample was collected from the International Boundary site in July 2003. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 5/09/2005 through 5/10/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial294152012SeleniumSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 46217 and 5426 are combined for a use rating determination. Fourteen of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Fourteen of 117 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   54262010State Reviewed SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal240Twenty-nine fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples were taken at 2 locations in the river. Six fish fillet and 3 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the constituent was not analyzed in the samples. The 23 fish fillet and 1 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 10/1985 through 12/1999 at two locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 7400 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the following New River locations: near the International Boundary, and near Westmorland, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty nine fish fillet samples of carp, tilapia, grass carp, spiny soft shelled turtle, channel catfish, and yellow bullhead were collected. Six carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1982, 1986, 1990-91, and 1993-94. Four carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, 1994, 1997, and 1999. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1996. One grass carp fillet composite sample was collected the year 1987. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1991-1992. One spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet samples was collected in the year 1987. Nine channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1979-80, (2)1982, 1987, 1991, 1995, and 1997-98. Four channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1990, and 1992-93. One yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. Four whole fish composite samples of red swamp crayfish, and sailfin molly & mosquitofish were collected. Three red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1978-80. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite samples was collected in the year 1985. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial294152012SeleniumSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 46217 and 5426 are combined for a use rating determination. Fourteen of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Fourteen of 117 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   300442010State Reviewed SeleniumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal14 Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 4 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Selenium for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The other two sampling locations were sampled twice in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial191912012ToxicitySource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2951 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 23491. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on section 4.6, this waterbody has significant sediment and water toxicity. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Thirteen of 24 water samples and four of 16 of 17 sediment samples exhibit toxicity when compared to control samples. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   320222012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 20221ToxicityWarm Freshwater Habitat ToxicityWaterNone145Fourteen samples were collected to evaluate water toxicity. Five of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008TOXICITY TESTINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 7 Basin Plan.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S eguals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL equals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance.1.Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013The samples were collected at stations 723NROTWM and 723NRBDRY.The samples were collected from May 2006 to April 2008. Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and follwed SWAMP protocols.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial191912012ToxicitySource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2951 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 23491. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on section 4.6, this waterbody has significant sediment and water toxicity. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Thirteen of 24 water samples and four of 16 of 17 sediment samples exhibit toxicity when compared to control samples. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   234912010State Reviewed ToxicityWarm Freshwater Habitat ToxicityWaterTotal108Ten water samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from two locations on the River. Of these total samples, 8 water samples from two locations produced significant toxicity when indicator organisms (hyalella azteca) were exposed to the sampled water. The samples exhibiting toxicity were collected from the International Boundary location on 5/08/2002, 10/01/2002, 4/09/2003, 5/03/2004, 10/04/2004, and 5/09/2005; collected from near the Salton Sea outlet on 10/05/2004, and 5/10/2005 (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.TOXICITY TESTINGBasin Plan:All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Water Toxicity was evaluated according to SWAMP methodology using the Hyalella Azteca 10 day water toxicity test outlined in the USEPA " Methods for measuring the acute toxicity of effluents and receiving waters to freshwater and marine organisms (2002)." This method was used to test the toxic effects of water samples on the freshwater test organism hyalella azteca. Waters are considered toxic when test samples show significant toxic levels when compared to a negative control. Significant toxicity is determined when statistical tests result in an alpha of less than 5%, and percent control less than the evaluation threshold (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) 2.Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition. EPA-821-R-02-012Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 2002 to 2005, in May and October. A water sample was not collected from near the Salton Sea outlet in May 2003 or May 2004. Water samples were not collected from either location in October 2003. The samples exhibiting toxicity were from 5/10/2002 through 5/11/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). In depth descriptions about the sampling and analysis for toxicity can be found in Werner et al, 2006.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) 2.Toxicity Testing and Toxicity Identification Examination. U.C. Davis.- Aquatic Toxicity Laboratory. Davis, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial191912012ToxicitySource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2951 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 23491. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on section 4.6, this waterbody has significant sediment and water toxicity. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Thirteen of 24 water samples and four of 16 of 17 sediment samples exhibit toxicity when compared to control samples. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   29522006State Reviewed ToxicityWarm Freshwater Habitat ToxicitySedimentNone44Toxicity testing data generated from 4 sediment samples. Four of these samples were toxic (SWAMP, 2004).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedBasin Plan: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Significant toxicity as compared to control.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Three stations were sampled, all were situated along the New River from the international boundary with Mexico to the outlet (mouth) of New River into the Salton Sea.All samples were taken between the spring (May) and the fall (October) of 2002. Toxicity was detected during both seasons.The New River flows from Mexico through the Imperial Valley in the Salton Sea. Most of the water flowing through it comes from agricultural return flows.SWAMP QAPP. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial191912012ToxicitySource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2951 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 23491. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on section 4.6, this waterbody has significant sediment and water toxicity. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Thirteen of 24 water samples and four of 16 of 17 sediment samples exhibit toxicity when compared to control samples. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   29512006State Reviewed ToxicityWarm Freshwater Habitat ToxicityWaterNone33Toxicity testing data generated from 3 water samples. Three of these samples were toxic (SWAMP, 2004).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedBasin Plan: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Significant toxicity as compared to control.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Three stations were sampled, all were situated along the New River from the international boundary with Mexico to the outlet (mouth) of New River into the Salton Sea.All samples were taken between the spring (May) and the fall (October) of 2002. Toxicity was detected during both seasons.The New River flows from Mexico through the Imperial Valley in the Salton Sea. Most of the water flowing through it comes from agricultural return flows.SWAMP QAPP. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial191912012ToxicitySource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2951 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 23491. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on section 4.6, this waterbody has significant sediment and water toxicity. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Thirteen of 24 water samples and four of 16 of 17 sediment samples exhibit toxicity when compared to control samples. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   320242012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 20225ToxicityWarm Freshwater Habitat ToxicitySedimentNone11One sample was collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. One of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided).1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008TOXICITY TESTINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 7 Basin Plan.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S eguals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL equals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance.1.Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064The samples were collected at station 723NROTWM.The sample was collected in October 2008. Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and follwed SWAMP protocols.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial191912012ToxicitySource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2951 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 23491. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on section 4.6, this waterbody has significant sediment and water toxicity. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Thirteen of 24 water samples and four of 16 of 17 sediment samples exhibit toxicity when compared to control samples. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   320232012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 20223ToxicityWarm Freshwater Habitat ToxicitySedimentNone1211Twelve samples were collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. Eleven of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008TOXICITY TESTINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 7 Basin Plan.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S eguals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL equals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance.1.Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064The samples were collected at stations 723NROTWM and 723NRBDRY.The samples were collected from October 2005 to October 2008. Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and follwed SWAMP protocols.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside304172012Indicator BacteriaSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. In the "Water Quality Objectives" Chapter of the Basin Plan under "Bacteria" there are objectives for Enterococcus, E.coli, and fecal coliform. These three organisms are bacteria indicators in water. Previous listing for this pollutant was identified as Pathogens but the pollutant name has been updated as Indicator Bacteria for clarity and consitency. LOE Nos. 2876, 4895 and 33249 are combined for a use rating determinatio, becuase all three LOEs are assessed based on the same beneficial uses, same matrix, same pollutant, and the same water quality objective. Fifty-three samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At a minimum, 53 of 53 samples exceeded the Basin Plan Enterococci water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing was made by USEPA for 2006.332492012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23288EnterococcusWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNone22Two of the two samples collected exceeded the entercoccus objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008Not SpecifiedThe entercoccus concentration shall not exceed more than 100/100ml. Basin Plan for the Colorado River Basin.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  The samples were collected from Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) and Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2).The samples were collected in October 2005. SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside304172012Indicator BacteriaSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. In the "Water Quality Objectives" Chapter of the Basin Plan under "Bacteria" there are objectives for Enterococcus, E.coli, and fecal coliform. These three organisms are bacteria indicators in water. Previous listing for this pollutant was identified as Pathogens but the pollutant name has been updated as Indicator Bacteria for clarity and consitency. LOE Nos. 2876, 4895 and 33249 are combined for a use rating determinatio, becuase all three LOEs are assessed based on the same beneficial uses, same matrix, same pollutant, and the same water quality objective. Fifty-three samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At a minimum, 53 of 53 samples exceeded the Basin Plan Enterococci water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing was made by USEPA for 2006.51122010State Reviewed Escherichia coli (E. coli)Non-Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal100Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at two locations in the Imperial Valley. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In waters designated for noncontact water recreation (REC II) the maximum allowable E. coli density is 2000 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 10/2004. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside304172012Indicator BacteriaSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. In the "Water Quality Objectives" Chapter of the Basin Plan under "Bacteria" there are objectives for Enterococcus, E.coli, and fecal coliform. These three organisms are bacteria indicators in water. Previous listing for this pollutant was identified as Pathogens but the pollutant name has been updated as Indicator Bacteria for clarity and consitency. LOE Nos. 2876, 4895 and 33249 are combined for a use rating determinatio, becuase all three LOEs are assessed based on the same beneficial uses, same matrix, same pollutant, and the same water quality objective. Fifty-three samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At a minimum, 53 of 53 samples exceeded the Basin Plan Enterococci water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing was made by USEPA for 2006.49042010State Reviewed EnterococcusNon-Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal107Ten water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003, and 10/2004 at 2 locations in the Palo verde area. Of these total samples, 7 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 5/08/2002, 10/01/2002, 4/08/2003, and 10/05/2004 from both locations (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In waters designated for noncontact water recreation (REC II) the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 500 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon area.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, usually in May and October, from 5/2002 through11/2003, and once in 10/2004. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 5/08/2002 through 10/05/2004. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside304172012Indicator BacteriaSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. In the "Water Quality Objectives" Chapter of the Basin Plan under "Bacteria" there are objectives for Enterococcus, E.coli, and fecal coliform. These three organisms are bacteria indicators in water. Previous listing for this pollutant was identified as Pathogens but the pollutant name has been updated as Indicator Bacteria for clarity and consitency. LOE Nos. 2876, 4895 and 33249 are combined for a use rating determinatio, becuase all three LOEs are assessed based on the same beneficial uses, same matrix, same pollutant, and the same water quality objective. Fifty-three samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At a minimum, 53 of 53 samples exceeded the Basin Plan Enterococci water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing was made by USEPA for 2006.48952010State Reviewed EnterococcusWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal1010Ten water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2004 at 2 locations along the Palo Verde. Of these total samples , 10 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 5/08/2002, 10/01/2002, 4/08/2003, 11/03/2003, and 10/05/2004 from the two locations (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In waters designated for water contact recreation (REC I) the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 100 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon area.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, usually in May and October, from 5/2002 through 11/2003 from the OUtfall Drain and Lagoon locations. Two additional samples were collected in 10/2004 from the two locations. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 5/08/2002 through 10/05/2004. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside304172012Indicator BacteriaSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. In the "Water Quality Objectives" Chapter of the Basin Plan under "Bacteria" there are objectives for Enterococcus, E.coli, and fecal coliform. These three organisms are bacteria indicators in water. Previous listing for this pollutant was identified as Pathogens but the pollutant name has been updated as Indicator Bacteria for clarity and consitency. LOE Nos. 2876, 4895 and 33249 are combined for a use rating determinatio, becuase all three LOEs are assessed based on the same beneficial uses, same matrix, same pollutant, and the same water quality objective. Fifty-three samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At a minimum, 53 of 53 samples exceeded the Basin Plan Enterococci water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing was made by USEPA for 2006.48782010State Reviewed Escherichia coli (E. coli)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal102Ten water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 10/2004 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples , 2 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 10/01/2002, and 4/08/2003 from the two locations (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In waters designated for water contact recreation (REC I) the maximum allowable E. coli density is 400 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon area.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, usually in May and October, from 5/2002 through 11/2003. Addtional samples were collected in 10/2004. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 4/08/2003 and 10/01/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside304172012Indicator BacteriaSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. In the "Water Quality Objectives" Chapter of the Basin Plan under "Bacteria" there are objectives for Enterococcus, E.coli, and fecal coliform. These three organisms are bacteria indicators in water. Previous listing for this pollutant was identified as Pathogens but the pollutant name has been updated as Indicator Bacteria for clarity and consitency. LOE Nos. 2876, 4895 and 33249 are combined for a use rating determinatio, becuase all three LOEs are assessed based on the same beneficial uses, same matrix, same pollutant, and the same water quality objective. Fifty-three samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At a minimum, 53 of 53 samples exceeded the Basin Plan Enterococci water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing was made by USEPA for 2006.28762006State Reviewed PathogensWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved4141Available data indicate numeric WQO violations for the following bacterial indicators: fecal coliform (6/41); enterococci (41/41) and E. coli (2/41) samples. Fecal and enterococci results are greater than single sample criteria by more than 10% exceedence rate. (Monthly samples not feasible for geomean analysis.) (CRBRWQCB, 2006a) (USEPA, 2007).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)PATHOGEN MONITORINGBacteria Objectives From the Colorado River Basin RWQCB Basin Plan:Geomean:E. coli: 126 per 100 ml Enterococci: 33 per 100 ml nor shall any sample exceed the followingSingle sample maximum:E. coli 400 per 100 ml enterococci 100 per 100 ml In addition to the objectives above, in waters designated for water contact recreation (REC I), the fecal coliform concentration based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30- day period, shall not exceed a log mean of 200 MPN per 100 ml, nor shall more than ten percent of total samples during any 30-day period exceed 400 MPN per 100 ml.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Seven locations were sampled. The stations sampled were: LG-1, LG-2, LG-3, LG-4, LG-5, PVOD-1, and PVod-2.Samples were taken from October 2000 to August 2002. Data record: 2000-2002, CO RWQCB draft TMDL report, 2005 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside304172012Indicator BacteriaSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. In the "Water Quality Objectives" Chapter of the Basin Plan under "Bacteria" there are objectives for Enterococcus, E.coli, and fecal coliform. These three organisms are bacteria indicators in water. Previous listing for this pollutant was identified as Pathogens but the pollutant name has been updated as Indicator Bacteria for clarity and consitency. LOE Nos. 2876, 4895 and 33249 are combined for a use rating determinatio, becuase all three LOEs are assessed based on the same beneficial uses, same matrix, same pollutant, and the same water quality objective. Fifty-three samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. At a minimum, 53 of 53 samples exceeded the Basin Plan Enterococci water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing was made by USEPA for 2006.332702012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23289Escherichia coli (E. coli)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNone22Two of the two samples collected exceeded the E. coli objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008Not SpecifiedThe E. coli concentration shall not exceed more than 400/100ml. Basin Plan for the Colorado River Basin.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  The samples were collected from Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) and Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1).The samples were collected in October 2005. SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside226452012ArsenicSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Five of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of nine fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   352432012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167582ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe dissolved arsenic criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for dissolved arsenic is 0.150 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, Salton Sea USGS9, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside226452012ArsenicSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Five of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of nine fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   352192012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167575ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 17 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for arsenic is 33 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, Salton Sea USGS9, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside226452012ArsenicSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Five of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of nine fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   54292010State Reviewed ArsenicCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal95Thirty-five fish fillet samples were taken at 3 locations in the sea. Twenty-six fish fillet sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample were not analyzed for the analyte. The 9 fish fillet samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 8/1985 through 11/2000 at two locations. Of these total samples, 5 fillet samples collected at 2 locations exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value. At the South location exceedences were found in 1 bairdiella fillet composite sample collected on 11/09/2000, and 3 tilapia fillet composite samples collected on 11/11/1998, and (2)11/09/2000. At the North location an exceedence was found in 1 tilapia fillet composite sample collected on 11/10/1998 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 1 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Salton Sea locations: from the North end, the South end and the West Side.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1984 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty five fish fillet samples of bairdiella, orangemouth corvina, redbelly tilapia, tilapia, and sargo were collected.Five bairdiella fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, 1987, (2)1989, and 2000. Ten orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1984-87, (4)1991, 1997, and 1999. Six orangemouth corvine single fish fillet samples were collected in the year (6)1986. Two redbelly tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in year (2)1995. Nine tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985,1987, (2)1996, 1997, (2)1998, and (2)2000. Three sargo fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, 1987, and 1991. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 11/10/1998 through 11/09/2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside226452012ArsenicSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Five of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of nine fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   52862010State Reviewed ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal120Twelve sediment quality samples were taken at 10 locations in the Salton Sea, collected between 7/1998 and 10/2001. Out of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 33 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following Salton Sea locations: USGS Station No. 333006116031501 near the mouth of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel, USGS Station No. 332958116023501 in the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel Delta, USGS Station No. 332908116011501 between North Basin and Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel, USGS Station No. 332637115512001 in Salt Creek Delta, USGS Station No. 331400115450001 near center of South Basin, USGS Station No. 331215115410001 between South Basin and New and Alamo River Deltas, USGS Station No. 330835115434501 in New River Delta, USGS Station No. 331023115473701 in San Felipe Creek Delta, USGS Station No. 330803115414001 near the mouth of New River, and USGS Station No. 331242115371401 near the mouth of Alamo River.Twelve samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 7/1998 through 10/2001. Seven samples were in 1998, 1 sample was collected in 1999, no samples were collected in 2000, and 5 samples were collected in 2001. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside226452012ArsenicSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Five of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of nine fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   51092010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal360Thirty-six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside226452012ArsenicSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Five of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of nine fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   50992010State Reviewed Arsenic | CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effects Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effects Criteria for the protection of aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 0.25 mg/l Arsenic, and 15 mg/l Copper (USDOI, 1998).1.Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside226452012ArsenicSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Five of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of nine fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   50752010State Reviewed ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 340 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside223642012ChlorpyrifosSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Fifteen of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Fifteen of 22 water samples exceeded the CA Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   48062010State Reviewed ChlorpyrifosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved2215Twenty-two water quality samples were collected every few weeks from 8/28/1996 through 4/15/1997 at three locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, 15 exceeded the CDFG Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 8/28/1996, 9/10/1996, 10/01/1996, 10/31/1996, 11/12/1996, and 3/05/1997 (CDPR, 2007).1.Data for pesticides in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Mar. 1993-Jun. 2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.02 ug/l (1 hr. ave.) for freshwater and saltwater aquatic life use protection (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and GameSamples were collected from three sites in Salton Sea near the mouth of the Alamo River. The sites were approximately 0.14, 0.14, and 0.25 mi. offshore.The samples were collected every few weeks from 8/28/1996 through 4/15/1997. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 8/28/1996 through 3/05/1997.The samples were collected every few weeks from August through November 1996 and from February through April 1997 to coincide with the pesticide application periods in the Imperial Valley (autumn and late winter/early spring) (Crepeau et al, 2002).Investigators used USGS QA/QC in sample collection and analysis. Lab analysis was done by the USGS California District Organic Chemistry Laboratory in Sacramento, California (Crepeau, 2002).1.“Dissolved Pesticides in the Alamo River and the Salton Sea, California, 1996-97.” United States Geological Survey. Sacramento, CA. Open file report No. 02-232. http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/of/ofr02232/
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside223642012ChlorpyrifosSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Fifteen of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Fifteen of 22 water samples exceeded the CA Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   354232012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168194ChlorpyrifosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for chlorpyrifos is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.77 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg and Weston, 2007).1.Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside223642012ChlorpyrifosSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Fifteen of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Fifteen of 22 water samples exceeded the CA Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   54962010State Reviewed ChlorpyrifosCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal310Thirty-one fish fillet samples were taken at 3 locations in the sea. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value. (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 10000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Salton Sea locations: from the North end, the South end, and the West Side.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty-one fish fillet samples of tilapia, bairdiella, orangemouth corvina, redbelly tilapia, Mozambique tilapia, and sargo were collected. Nine tilapia fillet composites samples were collected in the years 1984-85, (2)1996, 1997, (2)1998, and (2)2000. Five bairdiella fillet composite samples were collected in 1980, 1985, (2)1989, and 2000. Ten orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1981, 1984-87, (2)1991, 1997, and 1999. Two orangemouth corvina single fish fillet samples were collected in the year (2)1991. Two redbelly tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1980. Two sargo fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, and 1991. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside223642012ChlorpyrifosSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Fifteen of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Fifteen of 22 water samples exceeded the CA Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   352092012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167681ChlorpyrifosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twenty samples total were collected. None of the samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005).Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, Salton Sea USGS9, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside221962012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Twenty-three fish tissue samples and six sediment samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria.4. Six of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, and twenty-three of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   329152012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21840DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Zero of 14 samples collected for Sum DDD exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDD (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 28.0 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following stations: Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2, Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, .The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside221962012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Twenty-three fish tissue samples and six sediment samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria.4. Six of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, and twenty-three of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   329562012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21852DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Zero of 14 samples collected for Sum DDT exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDT (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 62.9 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following stations: Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2, Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, .The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside221962012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Twenty-three fish tissue samples and six sediment samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria.4. Six of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, and twenty-three of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   329812012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21858DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Zero of 14 samples collected for Total DDTs exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Total DDTs (DDD + DDE + DDT) in freshwater sediments is 572 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following stations: Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2, Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, .The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside221962012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Twenty-three fish tissue samples and six sediment samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria.4. Six of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, and twenty-three of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   345512012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 26197DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00The detection limit for DDT(o,p) is 0.001 ug/l, and the reporting limit for that is 0.002 ug/l. Since the WQS is smaller than the reporting limit, none of samples can be counted. In addition the detection limit for DDT(p,p') is 0.002 ug/l and the reporting limit is 0.005 ug/l, none of the samples can be counted. The water body was assessed for the sum of DDT(o,p') and DDT(p,p').1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 4,4' DDT criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.001 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 728SSDNW2 (Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2), 728SSGS02 (Salton Sea USGS2), 728SSGS07 (Salton Sea USGS7), and 728SSGS09 (Salton Sea USGS9).Samples collected between 10/26/2005 and 10/29/2008.Freshwater criteria is more protective than Saltwater criteria and was utilized to assess this water body.SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside221962012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Twenty-three fish tissue samples and six sediment samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria.4. Six of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, and twenty-three of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   464402012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671709Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: Tilapia leucosticta. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Salton Sea - 728PSS171]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside221962012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Twenty-three fish tissue samples and six sediment samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria.4. Six of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, and twenty-three of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   464412012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671710Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: Tilapia leucosticta. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Salton Sea - 728PSS171]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside221962012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Twenty-three fish tissue samples and six sediment samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria.4. Six of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, and twenty-three of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   55862010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal310Thirty-one fish fillet samples were taken at 3 locations in the sea. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 1000 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Salton Sea from the North end, the South end, and the West Side.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty-one fish fillet samples of tilapia, bairdiella, orangemouth corvina, redbelly tilapia, Mozambique tilapia, and sargo were collected. Nine tilapia fillet composites samples were collected in the years 1984-85, (2)1996, 1997, (2)1998, and (2)2000. Five bairdiella fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1980, 1985, (2)1989, and 2000. Ten orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1981, 1984-87, (2)1991, 1997, and 1999. Two orangemouth corvina single fish fillet samples were collected in the years (2)1991. Two redbelly tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1980. Two sargo fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, and 1991. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside221962012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Twenty-three fish tissue samples and six sediment samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria.4. Six of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, and twenty-three of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   55142010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10One sediment sample was taken at 1 location in the sea. The sediment sample was collected on 12/10/1987. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Chemical monitoring of sedimentsBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effect Concentration (PEC) of 62.9 ug/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects(Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31A sample was collected from the south end of the Salton Sea.One sediment samples was collected on 12/10/87 . The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside221962012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Twenty-three fish tissue samples and six sediment samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria.4. Six of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, and twenty-three of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   54272010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal3123Thirty-one fish fillet samples were taken at 3 locations in the sea. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 23 fillet samples collected at 3 locations exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. At the South location exceedances were found in; 5 bairdiella fillet composite samples collected on 5/21/1980, 8/06/1985, (2)11/01/1989, and 11/09/2000; 5 orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples collected on 5/24/1981, 8/06/1985, 10/07/1987, 5/15/1991 and 12/06/1999; 3 tilapia fillet composite samples collected on 8/07/1985, 11/20/1997, and 11/11/1998, and; 2 Mozambique tilapia fillet composite samples collected on 5/21/1980, and 8/06/1985. At the West Shore location exceedances were found in 2 orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples collected on 6/20/1984, and 5/19/1986. At the North location exceedances were found in; 3 orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples collected on 5/29/1981, 5/30/1991, and 11/18/1997; 2 orangemouth corvina single fish fillet samples collected on 5/30/1991, and 6/18/1991, and; 1 sargo fillet composite sample collected on 5/30/1991 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 21 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the following Salton Sea locations: from the North end, the South end and the West Side.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty-one fish fillet samples of tilapia, bairdiella, orangemouth corvina, redbelly tilapia, Mozambique tilapia, and sargo were collected. Nine tilapia fillet composites samples were collected in the years 1984-85, (2)1996, 1997, (2)1998, and (2)2000. Five bairdiella fillet composite samples were collected in 1980, 1985, (2)1989, and 2000. Ten orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1981, 1984-87, (2)1991, 1997, and 1999. Two orangemouth corvina single fish fillet samples were collected in the year (2)1991. Two redbelly tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1980. Two sargo fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, and 1991. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/21/1980 through 11/09/2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside221962012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Twenty-three fish tissue samples and six sediment samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria.4. Six of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, and twenty-three of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   50832010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside221962012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. Twenty-three fish tissue samples and six sediment samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria.4. Six of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, and twenty-three of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   329352012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21846DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal146Six of 14 samples collected for Sum DDE exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDE (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 31.3 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following stations: Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2, Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, .The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside223662012EnterococcusSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 4912 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient total sample size required by the Listing Policy, a minimum of 26 samples. LOE Nos. 33272 and 4854 are combined for a use rating determination. Nine of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Nine of 28 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   49122010State Reviewed EnterococcusNon-Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal241Twenty-four water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003, at 4 locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, 1 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedence was found in a sample collected on 11/04/2003 from the middle of the Salton Sea (GS2) (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In waters designated for noncontact water recreation (REC II) the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 500 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside223662012EnterococcusSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 4912 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient total sample size required by the Listing Policy, a minimum of 26 samples. LOE Nos. 33272 and 4854 are combined for a use rating determination. Nine of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Nine of 28 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   332722012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23291EnterococcusWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNone44Four of the four samples collected exceeded the entercoccus objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008Not SpecifiedThe entercoccus concentration shall not exceed more than 100/100ml. Basin Plan for the Colorado River Basin.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  The samples were collected from Salton Sea Drain NW2(Torrez Martinez 2), Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, and Salton Sea USGS9.The samples were collected in October 2005. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside223662012EnterococcusSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 4912 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient total sample size required by the Listing Policy, a minimum of 26 samples. LOE Nos. 33272 and 4854 are combined for a use rating determination. Nine of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Nine of 28 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   48542010State Reviewed EnterococcusWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal245Twenty-four water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 4/2003 at 6 locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples , 5 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 9/30/2002, 11/04/2003, and 11/05/2003 from four different locations, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS10(SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In waters designated for water contact recreation (REC I) the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 100 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 10/2003, and once in 10/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 9/2002 through 11/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside200012012NutrientsAgricultural Return Flows | Major Industrial Point Source | Out-of-state sourceDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original   2019   YNNN303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Boards will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   43942006State ReviewedNJK: This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.NutrientsWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNot Recorded00Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUnspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Unspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside294842012SalinityAgricultural Return Flows | Out-of-state source | Point SourceDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One hundred-seven of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One hundred-seven of 124 samples exceeded the Salinity Objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  TMDL development will not be effective in addressing this problem, which will require an engineering solution with federal, local, and state cooperation.299232010State Reviewed SalinityWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved128Twelve water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 4/2003 through 5/2004 at four locations in the Salton Sea Of these total samples, eight exceeded the Salinity Criteria The exceedences were found in samples collected on 11/04/2003, 11/05/2003, and 5/05/2004 from Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS9 (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).The water quality objective for Salton Sea is to reduce the present level of salinity, and stabilize it at 35,000 mg/l unless it can be demonstrated that a different level of salinity is optimal for the sustenance of the Sea's wild and aquatic life (California Department of Fish and Game is attempting to make this determination). However, the achievement of this water quality objective shall be accomplished without adversely affecting the primary purpose of the Sea which is to receive and store agricultural drainage, seepage, and storm waters. Also, because of economic considerations, 35,000 mg/l may not be realistically achievable. In such case, any reduction in salinity which still allows for survival of the sea's aquatic life shall be deemed an acceptable alternative or interim objective. Because of the difficulty and predicted costliness of achieving salinity stabilization of Salton Sea, it is unreasonable for the Regional Board to assume responsibility for implementation of this objective. That responsibility must be shared jointly by all of the agencies which have direct influence on the Sea's fate. Additionally, there must be considerable public support for achieving this objective, without which it is unlikely necessary funding for Salton Sea salinity control will ever be realized.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS9.Twelve water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed in April and November of 2003, and May of 2005 at all four sampling locations.The exceedences were found in samples collected from 11/04/2003 through 5/05/2004. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside294842012SalinityAgricultural Return Flows | Out-of-state source | Point SourceDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One hundred-seven of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One hundred-seven of 124 samples exceeded the Salinity Objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  TMDL development will not be effective in addressing this problem, which will require an engineering solution with federal, local, and state cooperation.34252006State ReviewedNeed to check on assessment of data and remedial programs. Also, add reference or assign dataset.SalinityWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterNot SpecifiedNone8986Samples were collected by IID at 5 locations around the Salton Sea twice annually from 1995 to 2003. A total of 89 measurements were taken and only 3 measurements were less than 35,000 mg/L and 86 exceeded. Two of those measurements were at the "between rivers" site. Salinity data from this site is generally excluded from the IID Salt Balance Report due to possible influence of fresh water from the New and Alamo Rivers (CRBRWQCB, 2004).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedThe water quality objective for Salton Sea is to reduce the present level of salinity, and stabilize it at 35,000 mg/l unless it can be demonstrated that a different level of salinity is optimal for the sustenance of the Sea's wild and aquatic life (California Department of Fish and Game is attempting to make this determination). However, the achievement of this water quality objective shall be accomplished without adversely affecting the primary purpose of the Sea which is to receive and store agricultural drainage, seepage, and storm waters. Also, because of economic considerations, 35,000 mg/l may not be realistically achievable. In such case, any reduction in salinity which still allows for survival of the sea's aquatic life shall be deemed an acceptable alternative or interim objective. Because of the difficulty and predicted costliness of achieving salinity stabilization of Salton Sea, it is unreasonable for the Regional Board to assume responsibility for implementation of this objective. That responsibility must be shared jointly by all of the agencies which have direct influence on the Sea's fate. Additionally, there must be considerable public support for achieving this objective, without which it is unlikely necessary funding for Salton Sea salinity control will ever be realized.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected at 5 locations around the outer edge of the Salton Sea: Bertram Station, Desert Beach, Salton Sea Beach, Sandy Beach, and Between Rivers.Samples were collected twice annually (spring and fall) from 5/10/1995 through 10/23/2003.Samples were collected every spring and fall when irrigation practices may be most common.Imperial Irrigation District (IID) SOPs and Clinical Laboratory of San Bernardino (CLSB) QA Manual. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside294842012SalinityAgricultural Return Flows | Out-of-state source | Point SourceDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2019   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One hundred-seven of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One hundred-seven of 124 samples exceeded the Salinity Objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  TMDL development will not be effective in addressing this problem, which will require an engineering solution with federal, local, and state cooperation.345882012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 26207Salinity/TDS/ChloridesWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal201313 of the 20 samples exceeded the site specific objective of 35000 mg/L.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Colorado River Basin plan has a site specific objective for salinity in the Salton Sea stating: "The water quality objective for Salton Sea is to reduce the present level of salinity, and stabilize it at 35,000 mg/l unless it can be demonstrated that a different level of salinity is optimal for the sustenance of the Sea's wild and aquatic life (California Department of Fish and Game is attempting to make this determination)."1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples collected at stations 728SSDNW2 (Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2), 728SSGS02 (Salton Sea USGS2), 728SSGS07 (Salton Sea USGS7), and 728SSGS09 (Salton Sea USGS9).Samples collected between 10/26/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial210662012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5551 were assessed based on the OEHHA fish tissue guideline of 21 ug/kg of DDT, and two of two fish sample exceeded this guideline. LOE Nos. 46269 and 46296 are both assessed based on the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline of 15 ug/kg of DDT, and two of three fish tissue sample exceeded this guideline. Although these three LOEs used different level of DDT guidelines for assessment, all three of them are combined into the final use rating because reassessment of LOE No. 5551 based on the modified OEHHA guideline will results in the same conclusion as two of two exceedance(i.e., if a sample exceed 21 ug/kg, it surely exceed 15 ug/kg). LOE No. 5551 is combined with LOE Nos. 46269 and 46296 for a use rating determination purpose. Four of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Four of five fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this exceesd the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   462692012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671545Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet21Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial210662012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5551 were assessed based on the OEHHA fish tissue guideline of 21 ug/kg of DDT, and two of two fish sample exceeded this guideline. LOE Nos. 46269 and 46296 are both assessed based on the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline of 15 ug/kg of DDT, and two of three fish tissue sample exceeded this guideline. Although these three LOEs used different level of DDT guidelines for assessment, all three of them are combined into the final use rating because reassessment of LOE No. 5551 based on the modified OEHHA guideline will results in the same conclusion as two of two exceedance(i.e., if a sample exceed 21 ug/kg, it surely exceed 15 ug/kg). LOE No. 5551 is combined with LOE Nos. 46269 and 46296 for a use rating determination purpose. Four of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Four of five fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this exceesd the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   55882010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal20Two fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the lake. The samples were generally collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. Of these two samples, neither exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 1000 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the interior of Wiest Lake.Two largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial210662012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5551 were assessed based on the OEHHA fish tissue guideline of 21 ug/kg of DDT, and two of two fish sample exceeded this guideline. LOE Nos. 46269 and 46296 are both assessed based on the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline of 15 ug/kg of DDT, and two of three fish tissue sample exceeded this guideline. Although these three LOEs used different level of DDT guidelines for assessment, all three of them are combined into the final use rating because reassessment of LOE No. 5551 based on the modified OEHHA guideline will results in the same conclusion as two of two exceedance(i.e., if a sample exceed 21 ug/kg, it surely exceed 15 ug/kg). LOE No. 5551 is combined with LOE Nos. 46269 and 46296 for a use rating determination purpose. Four of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Four of five fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this exceesd the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   55512010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal22Two fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the lake. The samples were generally collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. Of these two samples, both exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. The exceedances were found in 2 largemouth bass fillet composite samples collected on 10/31/1989, and 12/06/1999 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 21 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the interior of Wiest Lake.Two largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. Exceedances were found in samples collected on 10/31/1989, and 12/06/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial210662012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5551 were assessed based on the OEHHA fish tissue guideline of 21 ug/kg of DDT, and two of two fish sample exceeded this guideline. LOE Nos. 46269 and 46296 are both assessed based on the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline of 15 ug/kg of DDT, and two of three fish tissue sample exceeded this guideline. Although these three LOEs used different level of DDT guidelines for assessment, all three of them are combined into the final use rating because reassessment of LOE No. 5551 based on the modified OEHHA guideline will results in the same conclusion as two of two exceedance(i.e., if a sample exceed 21 ug/kg, it surely exceed 15 ug/kg). LOE No. 5551 is combined with LOE Nos. 46269 and 46296 for a use rating determination purpose. Four of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Four of five fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this exceesd the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   462812012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671547Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial210662012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5551 were assessed based on the OEHHA fish tissue guideline of 21 ug/kg of DDT, and two of two fish sample exceeded this guideline. LOE Nos. 46269 and 46296 are both assessed based on the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline of 15 ug/kg of DDT, and two of three fish tissue sample exceeded this guideline. Although these three LOEs used different level of DDT guidelines for assessment, all three of them are combined into the final use rating because reassessment of LOE No. 5551 based on the modified OEHHA guideline will results in the same conclusion as two of two exceedance(i.e., if a sample exceed 21 ug/kg, it surely exceed 15 ug/kg). LOE No. 5551 is combined with LOE Nos. 46269 and 46296 for a use rating determination purpose. Four of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Four of five fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this exceesd the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   462982012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671757Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial210662012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5551 were assessed based on the OEHHA fish tissue guideline of 21 ug/kg of DDT, and two of two fish sample exceeded this guideline. LOE Nos. 46269 and 46296 are both assessed based on the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline of 15 ug/kg of DDT, and two of three fish tissue sample exceeded this guideline. Although these three LOEs used different level of DDT guidelines for assessment, all three of them are combined into the final use rating because reassessment of LOE No. 5551 based on the modified OEHHA guideline will results in the same conclusion as two of two exceedance(i.e., if a sample exceed 21 ug/kg, it surely exceed 15 ug/kg). LOE No. 5551 is combined with LOE Nos. 46269 and 46296 for a use rating determination purpose. Four of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Four of five fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this exceesd the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   462962012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671755Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet11Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial210662012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5551 were assessed based on the OEHHA fish tissue guideline of 21 ug/kg of DDT, and two of two fish sample exceeded this guideline. LOE Nos. 46269 and 46296 are both assessed based on the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline of 15 ug/kg of DDT, and two of three fish tissue sample exceeded this guideline. Although these three LOEs used different level of DDT guidelines for assessment, all three of them are combined into the final use rating because reassessment of LOE No. 5551 based on the modified OEHHA guideline will results in the same conclusion as two of two exceedance(i.e., if a sample exceed 21 ug/kg, it surely exceed 15 ug/kg). LOE No. 5551 is combined with LOE Nos. 46269 and 46296 for a use rating determination purpose. Four of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Four of five fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this exceesd the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   462972012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671756Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Cold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial210662012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2021   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5551 were assessed based on the OEHHA fish tissue guideline of 21 ug/kg of DDT, and two of two fish sample exceeded this guideline. LOE Nos. 46269 and 46296 are both assessed based on the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline of 15 ug/kg of DDT, and two of three fish tissue sample exceeded this guideline. Although these three LOEs used different level of DDT guidelines for assessment, all three of them are combined into the final use rating because reassessment of LOE No. 5551 based on the modified OEHHA guideline will results in the same conclusion as two of two exceedance(i.e., if a sample exceed 21 ug/kg, it surely exceed 15 ug/kg). LOE No. 5551 is combined with LOE Nos. 46269 and 46296 for a use rating determination purpose. Four of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Four of five fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this exceesd the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   462802012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671546Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Cold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial180502012Sedimentation/SiltationAgricultural Return FlowsDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)Revised 154Alamo River Sedimentation/Siltation  06/28/2002 YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 24797 and 24798 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for listing under section 2.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. This water segment-pollutant combination was moved off the section 303(d) list category "needing and EPA approved TMDL developed" and placed in the category "being addressed by an EPA approved TMDL" during the 2002 listing cycle. An Alamo River Sediment TMDL was approved by the RWQCB in 2001 and subsequently approved by USEPA in 2002. The TMDL set a numeric target of 200 mg/l annual average Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentration. Implementation of the TMDL is expected to result in attainment of the standard. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2910 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. There were three years in which the annual average TSS exceeded the TMDL numeric target.There were a total of 295 water samples collected representing 7 years of data. When comparing the samples results to the TMDL 200 mg/l annual average TSS numeric target for aquatic life uses, there were three years in which the annual average TSS exceeded the numeric target. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. A Sediment TMDL was develped and approved by the RWQCB in 2001 and subsequently approved by USEPA in 2002. Implementation of the TMDL is expected to result in attainment of the standard.4. At a minimum, 3 of 7 TSS annual averages exceeded the Alamo River Sediment TMDL Numeric Target and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. However, there are not enough annual averages to support delisting according to instructions for Table 4.2. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   247972010State Reviewed Total Suspended Solids (TSS)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal30Ten water samples were collected from two locations along the river over a 3 year period. Over these three years, none of the annual average TSS concentrations exceeded the TMDL Numeric Target (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only)Basin Plan: The Final Numeric Target for the New River Sedimentation Siltation TMDL for TSS is an annual average of 200 mg/l (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea on Garst Road.Ten water samples were generally collected from 4/2003 through 5/2005. Water samples were collected and analyzed in April and October of 2003, May and November of 2004, and May of 2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial180502012Sedimentation/SiltationAgricultural Return FlowsDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)Revised 154Alamo River Sedimentation/Siltation  06/28/2002 YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 24797 and 24798 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for listing under section 2.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. This water segment-pollutant combination was moved off the section 303(d) list category "needing and EPA approved TMDL developed" and placed in the category "being addressed by an EPA approved TMDL" during the 2002 listing cycle. An Alamo River Sediment TMDL was approved by the RWQCB in 2001 and subsequently approved by USEPA in 2002. The TMDL set a numeric target of 200 mg/l annual average Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentration. Implementation of the TMDL is expected to result in attainment of the standard. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2910 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. There were three years in which the annual average TSS exceeded the TMDL numeric target.There were a total of 295 water samples collected representing 7 years of data. When comparing the samples results to the TMDL 200 mg/l annual average TSS numeric target for aquatic life uses, there were three years in which the annual average TSS exceeded the numeric target. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. A Sediment TMDL was develped and approved by the RWQCB in 2001 and subsequently approved by USEPA in 2002. Implementation of the TMDL is expected to result in attainment of the standard.4. At a minimum, 3 of 7 TSS annual averages exceeded the Alamo River Sediment TMDL Numeric Target and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. However, there are not enough annual averages to support delisting according to instructions for Table 4.2. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   247982010State Reviewed Total Suspended Solids (TSS)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal43Two hundred and eighty-five water samples were collected from 7 locations along the river over a 4 year period. Over these 4 years, 3 of the annual average TSS concentrations exceeded the TMDL Numeric Target. The annual average TSS Numeric target was exceeded in 2003, 2004, and 2006 (CRBRWQCB, 2007).1.Imperial Valley Sedimentation/Siltation TMDL Implementation Update, Staff Report to Regional Board, June 26, 2007. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only)Basin Plan: The Final Numeric Target for the New River Sedimentation Siltation TMDL for TSS is an annual average of 200 mg/l (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10, Drop 8, Drop 6A, Drop 6, Drop 3, and near the outlet to the Salton sea on Garst Road.Two hundred and eighty-five water samples were generally collected from 2/2003 through 12/2006. Water samples were collected and analyzed monthly from 2/2003 through 12/2006. Samples were not collected from each site every month. Exceedances were found in 2003, 2004, and 2006. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 2003).1.Quality Assurance Project Plan for Alamo River Siltation/Sedimentation TMDL Implementation. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial180502012Sedimentation/SiltationAgricultural Return FlowsDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)Revised 154Alamo River Sedimentation/Siltation  06/28/2002 YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 24797 and 24798 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for listing under section 2.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. This water segment-pollutant combination was moved off the section 303(d) list category "needing and EPA approved TMDL developed" and placed in the category "being addressed by an EPA approved TMDL" during the 2002 listing cycle. An Alamo River Sediment TMDL was approved by the RWQCB in 2001 and subsequently approved by USEPA in 2002. The TMDL set a numeric target of 200 mg/l annual average Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentration. Implementation of the TMDL is expected to result in attainment of the standard. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2910 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. There were three years in which the annual average TSS exceeded the TMDL numeric target.There were a total of 295 water samples collected representing 7 years of data. When comparing the samples results to the TMDL 200 mg/l annual average TSS numeric target for aquatic life uses, there were three years in which the annual average TSS exceeded the numeric target. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. A Sediment TMDL was develped and approved by the RWQCB in 2001 and subsequently approved by USEPA in 2002. Implementation of the TMDL is expected to result in attainment of the standard.4. At a minimum, 3 of 7 TSS annual averages exceeded the Alamo River Sediment TMDL Numeric Target and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. However, there are not enough annual averages to support delisting according to instructions for Table 4.2. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   29102006State Reviewed Sedimentation/SiltationWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterNot RecordedNone00Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not Specified       QA Info Missing 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside213832012Indicator BacteriaSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)Revised 16Coachella Valley Storm Channel Pathogen TMDL  04/27/2012 YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 2.2 and 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.2 of the Policy, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Previous listing for this pollutant was identified as Pathogens but the pollutant name has been updated as Indicator Bacteria for clarity and consistency. Five of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of seven water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective for water contact recreation and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Cochella Valley Stormwater Channel Indicator Bacteria TMDL has been approved by the RWQCB, R7 in 2010 and approved by the USEPA on 4/27/2012.5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for pathogens only applies to a 17 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Dillion Road to the Salton Sea.332432012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23281EnterococcusWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNone10The one sample collected did not exceed the entercoccus objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008Not SpecifiedThe entercoccus concentration shall not exceed more than 100/100ml. Basin Plan for the Colorado River Basin.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  The sample was collected from the Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) station 719CVSC52.The samples were collected in October 2005. SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside213832012Indicator BacteriaSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)Revised 16Coachella Valley Storm Channel Pathogen TMDL  04/27/2012 YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 2.2 and 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.2 of the Policy, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Previous listing for this pollutant was identified as Pathogens but the pollutant name has been updated as Indicator Bacteria for clarity and consistency. Five of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of seven water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective for water contact recreation and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Cochella Valley Stormwater Channel Indicator Bacteria TMDL has been approved by the RWQCB, R7 in 2010 and approved by the USEPA on 4/27/2012.5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for pathogens only applies to a 17 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Dillion Road to the Salton Sea.332442012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23282Escherichia coli (E. coli)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNone10The one sample collected did not exceed the E. coli objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008Not SpecifiedThe E. coli concentration shall not exceed more than 400/100ml. Basin Plan for the Colorado River Basin.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  The sample was collected from the Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) station 719CVSC52.The sample was collected in October 2005. SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside213832012Indicator BacteriaSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)Revised 16Coachella Valley Storm Channel Pathogen TMDL  04/27/2012 YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 2.2 and 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.2 of the Policy, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Previous listing for this pollutant was identified as Pathogens but the pollutant name has been updated as Indicator Bacteria for clarity and consistency. Five of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of seven water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective for water contact recreation and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Cochella Valley Stormwater Channel Indicator Bacteria TMDL has been approved by the RWQCB, R7 in 2010 and approved by the USEPA on 4/27/2012.5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for pathogens only applies to a 17 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Dillion Road to the Salton Sea.51132010State Reviewed Escherichia coli (E. coli)Non-Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Six quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at two locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In waters designated for noncontact water recreation (REC II) the maximum allowable E. coli density is 2000 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. Ave 52 was sampled in May and October 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside213832012Indicator BacteriaSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)Revised 16Coachella Valley Storm Channel Pathogen TMDL  04/27/2012 YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 2.2 and 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.2 of the Policy, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Previous listing for this pollutant was identified as Pathogens but the pollutant name has been updated as Indicator Bacteria for clarity and consistency. Five of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of seven water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective for water contact recreation and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Cochella Valley Stormwater Channel Indicator Bacteria TMDL has been approved by the RWQCB, R7 in 2010 and approved by the USEPA on 4/27/2012.5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for pathogens only applies to a 17 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Dillion Road to the Salton Sea.51102010State Reviewed Escherichia coli (E. coli)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at two locations along the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In waters designated for water contact recreation (REC I) the maximum allowable E. coli density is 400 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. Ave 52 was sampled in May and October 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside213832012Indicator BacteriaSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)Revised 16Coachella Valley Storm Channel Pathogen TMDL  04/27/2012 YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 2.2 and 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.2 of the Policy, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Previous listing for this pollutant was identified as Pathogens but the pollutant name has been updated as Indicator Bacteria for clarity and consistency. Five of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of seven water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective for water contact recreation and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Cochella Valley Stormwater Channel Indicator Bacteria TMDL has been approved by the RWQCB, R7 in 2010 and approved by the USEPA on 4/27/2012.5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for pathogens only applies to a 17 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Dillion Road to the Salton Sea.49062010State Reviewed EnterococcusNon-Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal63Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003, and 10/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, 3 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 10/03/2002, 4/10/2003, and 11/04/2003 from both locations (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In waters designated for noncontact water recreation (REC II) the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 500 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in 2002. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 10/03/2002 through 11/04/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside213832012Indicator BacteriaSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)Revised 16Coachella Valley Storm Channel Pathogen TMDL  04/27/2012 YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 2.2 and 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.2 of the Policy, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Previous listing for this pollutant was identified as Pathogens but the pollutant name has been updated as Indicator Bacteria for clarity and consistency. Five of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of seven water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective for water contact recreation and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Cochella Valley Stormwater Channel Indicator Bacteria TMDL has been approved by the RWQCB, R7 in 2010 and approved by the USEPA on 4/27/2012.5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for pathogens only applies to a 17 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Dillion Road to the Salton Sea.48962010State Reviewed EnterococcusWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal65Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at 2 locations along the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples , 5 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 5/09/2002, 10/03/2002, 4/10/2003, and 11/04/2003 from the two different locations (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In waters designated for water contact recreation (REC I) the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 100 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Ave 52 was sampled in May and October 2002.The exceedences were found in samples collected from 5/09/2002 through 11/04/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside213832012Indicator BacteriaSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)Revised 16Coachella Valley Storm Channel Pathogen TMDL  04/27/2012 YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 2.2 and 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.2 of the Policy, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Previous listing for this pollutant was identified as Pathogens but the pollutant name has been updated as Indicator Bacteria for clarity and consistency. Five of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of seven water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective for water contact recreation and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Cochella Valley Stormwater Channel Indicator Bacteria TMDL has been approved by the RWQCB, R7 in 2010 and approved by the USEPA on 4/27/2012.5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for pathogens only applies to a 17 mile area of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel from Dillion Road to the Salton Sea.46642006State ReviewedNJK: This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.PathogensWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNot Recorded00Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUnspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)Unspecified1.Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d)UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecified 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial206692012Sedimentation/SiltationAgricultural Return FlowsDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)Original 14Imperial Valley Drains (Niland 2, P, Pumice, and their tributary drains) Sediment TMDL  09/30/2005 YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for listing under section 2.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No 2962 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006.Based on the applicable factor, the Imperial Valley Drains sedimentation/siltation TMDL was approved by USEPA on September 30, 2005. The approved TMDL and implementation plan is expected to result in attainment of the standard.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   29622006State ReviewedNJK: This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.Sedimentation/SiltationWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterNot SpecifiedNone  Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not Specified       QA Info Missing 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial222802012Indicator BacteriaConfined Animal Feeding Operations (NPS) | Municipal Point Sources | Out-of-state source | Point Source | WastewaterDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)Revised 152New River Pathogen  08/14/2002 YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.2 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Previous listing for this pollutant was identified as Pathogens but the pollutant name has been updated as Indicator Bacteria for clarity and consistency. Line of Evidence No. 2950 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. LOEs 33248 and 4900 were combined to determine a final use support rating. LOEs 33247 and 4894 were combined to determine a final use support rating.In the "Water Quality Objectives" Chapter of the Basin Plan under "Bacteria" there are objectives for Enterococcus, E.coli, and fecal coliform. These three organisms are pathogen indicators in water.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list and placing it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA and is expected to result in attainment of the standard.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Listing Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Listing Policy.3. Twelve out of 12 water samples taken exceeded the Basin Plan Enterococcus Water Quality Objective, 98 of 98 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan fecal coliform objective, and 13 of 13 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan E.Coli objective . These exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy.4. The New River Pathogen TMDL was approved by the RWQCB in 2001 and approved by USEPA on 08/14/2002. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   49002010State Reviewed EnterococcusWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal1010Ten water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 4/2003 at 4 locations along the New River. Of these total samples , 10 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 5/06/2002, 5/07/2002, 5/08/2002, 9/30/2002, 10/01/2002, 10/02/2002, and 4/09/2003 from all four locations (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In waters designated for water contact recreation (REC I) the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 100 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed in May and October 2002, and April 2003 from all locations. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 5/06/2002 through 4/09/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial222802012Indicator BacteriaConfined Animal Feeding Operations (NPS) | Municipal Point Sources | Out-of-state source | Point Source | WastewaterDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)Revised 152New River Pathogen  08/14/2002 YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.2 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Previous listing for this pollutant was identified as Pathogens but the pollutant name has been updated as Indicator Bacteria for clarity and consistency. Line of Evidence No. 2950 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. LOEs 33248 and 4900 were combined to determine a final use support rating. LOEs 33247 and 4894 were combined to determine a final use support rating.In the "Water Quality Objectives" Chapter of the Basin Plan under "Bacteria" there are objectives for Enterococcus, E.coli, and fecal coliform. These three organisms are pathogen indicators in water.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list and placing it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA and is expected to result in attainment of the standard.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Listing Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Listing Policy.3. Twelve out of 12 water samples taken exceeded the Basin Plan Enterococcus Water Quality Objective, 98 of 98 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan fecal coliform objective, and 13 of 13 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan E.Coli objective . These exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy.4. The New River Pathogen TMDL was approved by the RWQCB in 2001 and approved by USEPA on 08/14/2002. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   48942010State Reviewed Escherichia coli (E. coli)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal1111Eleven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 4/2005 at 4 locations along the New River. Of these total samples , 11 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 5/06/2002, 5/08/2002, 9/30/2002, 10/01/2002, 4/09/2003, and 5/24/2004 from all four different locations (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In waters designated for water contact recreation (REC I) the maximum allowable E. coli density is 400 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Eleven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, usually in May and October, from 5/2002 through 4/2003 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. An additional sample was collected from the International Boundary in 5/2004. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 5/06/2002 through 5/24/2004. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial222802012Indicator BacteriaConfined Animal Feeding Operations (NPS) | Municipal Point Sources | Out-of-state source | Point Source | WastewaterDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)Revised 152New River Pathogen  08/14/2002 YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.2 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Previous listing for this pollutant was identified as Pathogens but the pollutant name has been updated as Indicator Bacteria for clarity and consistency. Line of Evidence No. 2950 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. LOEs 33248 and 4900 were combined to determine a final use support rating. LOEs 33247 and 4894 were combined to determine a final use support rating.In the "Water Quality Objectives" Chapter of the Basin Plan under "Bacteria" there are objectives for Enterococcus, E.coli, and fecal coliform. These three organisms are pathogen indicators in water.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list and placing it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA and is expected to result in attainment of the standard.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Listing Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Listing Policy.3. Twelve out of 12 water samples taken exceeded the Basin Plan Enterococcus Water Quality Objective, 98 of 98 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan fecal coliform objective, and 13 of 13 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan E.Coli objective . These exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy.4. The New River Pathogen TMDL was approved by the RWQCB in 2001 and approved by USEPA on 08/14/2002. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   29502006State ReviewedNJK: This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.PathogensWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNone00Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not Specified       QA Info Missing 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial222802012Indicator BacteriaConfined Animal Feeding Operations (NPS) | Municipal Point Sources | Out-of-state source | Point Source | WastewaterDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)Revised 152New River Pathogen  08/14/2002 YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.2 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Previous listing for this pollutant was identified as Pathogens but the pollutant name has been updated as Indicator Bacteria for clarity and consistency. Line of Evidence No. 2950 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. LOEs 33248 and 4900 were combined to determine a final use support rating. LOEs 33247 and 4894 were combined to determine a final use support rating.In the "Water Quality Objectives" Chapter of the Basin Plan under "Bacteria" there are objectives for Enterococcus, E.coli, and fecal coliform. These three organisms are pathogen indicators in water.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list and placing it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA and is expected to result in attainment of the standard.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Listing Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Listing Policy.3. Twelve out of 12 water samples taken exceeded the Basin Plan Enterococcus Water Quality Objective, 98 of 98 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan fecal coliform objective, and 13 of 13 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan E.Coli objective . These exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy.4. The New River Pathogen TMDL was approved by the RWQCB in 2001 and approved by USEPA on 08/14/2002. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   49022010State Reviewed Escherichia coli (E. coli)Non-Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved1111Eleven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 4/2003 at 4 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, 11 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 5/06/2002, 5/07/2002, 5/08/2002, 9/30/2002, 10/01/2002, 10/02/2002 and 4/09/2003 from all four locations (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In waters designated for noncontact water recreation (REC II) the maximum allowable E. coli density is 2000 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Eleven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed in May and October 2002, and April 2003. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 5/06/2002 through 5/24/2004. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial222802012Indicator BacteriaConfined Animal Feeding Operations (NPS) | Municipal Point Sources | Out-of-state source | Point Source | WastewaterDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)Revised 152New River Pathogen  08/14/2002 YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.2 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Previous listing for this pollutant was identified as Pathogens but the pollutant name has been updated as Indicator Bacteria for clarity and consistency. Line of Evidence No. 2950 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. LOEs 33248 and 4900 were combined to determine a final use support rating. LOEs 33247 and 4894 were combined to determine a final use support rating.In the "Water Quality Objectives" Chapter of the Basin Plan under "Bacteria" there are objectives for Enterococcus, E.coli, and fecal coliform. These three organisms are pathogen indicators in water.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list and placing it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA and is expected to result in attainment of the standard.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Listing Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Listing Policy.3. Twelve out of 12 water samples taken exceeded the Basin Plan Enterococcus Water Quality Objective, 98 of 98 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan fecal coliform objective, and 13 of 13 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan E.Coli objective . These exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy.4. The New River Pathogen TMDL was approved by the RWQCB in 2001 and approved by USEPA on 08/14/2002. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   332482012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23287EnterococcusWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNone22Two of the two samples collected exceeded the entercoccus objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008Not SpecifiedThe entercoccus concentration shall not exceed more than 100/100ml. Basin Plan for the Colorado River Basin.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  The samples were collected from New River Outlet station 723NROTWM and New River at Boundary station 723NRBDRY.The samples were collected in October 2005. SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial222802012Indicator BacteriaConfined Animal Feeding Operations (NPS) | Municipal Point Sources | Out-of-state source | Point Source | WastewaterDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)Revised 152New River Pathogen  08/14/2002 YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.2 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Previous listing for this pollutant was identified as Pathogens but the pollutant name has been updated as Indicator Bacteria for clarity and consistency. Line of Evidence No. 2950 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. LOEs 33248 and 4900 were combined to determine a final use support rating. LOEs 33247 and 4894 were combined to determine a final use support rating.In the "Water Quality Objectives" Chapter of the Basin Plan under "Bacteria" there are objectives for Enterococcus, E.coli, and fecal coliform. These three organisms are pathogen indicators in water.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list and placing it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA and is expected to result in attainment of the standard.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Listing Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Listing Policy.3. Twelve out of 12 water samples taken exceeded the Basin Plan Enterococcus Water Quality Objective, 98 of 98 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan fecal coliform objective, and 13 of 13 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan E.Coli objective . These exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy.4. The New River Pathogen TMDL was approved by the RWQCB in 2001 and approved by USEPA on 08/14/2002. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   332472012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23286Escherichia coli (E. coli)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNone22Two of the two samples collected exceeded the E. coli objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008Not SpecifiedThe E. coli concentration shall not exceed more than 400/100ml. Basin Plan for the Colorado River Basin.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  The samples were collected from New River at Boundary station 723NRBDRY and New River Outlet station 723NROTWM.The samples were collected in October 2005. SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial222802012Indicator BacteriaConfined Animal Feeding Operations (NPS) | Municipal Point Sources | Out-of-state source | Point Source | WastewaterDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)Revised 152New River Pathogen  08/14/2002 YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.2 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Previous listing for this pollutant was identified as Pathogens but the pollutant name has been updated as Indicator Bacteria for clarity and consistency. Line of Evidence No. 2950 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. LOEs 33248 and 4900 were combined to determine a final use support rating. LOEs 33247 and 4894 were combined to determine a final use support rating.In the "Water Quality Objectives" Chapter of the Basin Plan under "Bacteria" there are objectives for Enterococcus, E.coli, and fecal coliform. These three organisms are pathogen indicators in water.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list and placing it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA and is expected to result in attainment of the standard.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Listing Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Listing Policy.3. Twelve out of 12 water samples taken exceeded the Basin Plan Enterococcus Water Quality Objective, 98 of 98 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan fecal coliform objective, and 13 of 13 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan E.Coli objective . These exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy.4. The New River Pathogen TMDL was approved by the RWQCB in 2001 and approved by USEPA on 08/14/2002. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   316722012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 15466Fecal ColiformWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNone9898Ninety-eight of the 98 samples exceeded the Fecal Coliform objective.1.Data for bacteria and temperature in Alamo River, New River (Imperial County), and Tijuana River, Jan 2006-Mar. 2010Not SpecifiedThe fecal coliform concentration shall not exceed more than 400/100 ml. Basin Plan for the Colorado River Basin.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  The samples were collected in New River at the international boundary.The samples were collected between January 2006 to March 2010. CAR7231000019990205102948 The samples were collected under the USIBWC Collection and Field Analysis of Water Quality Samples document. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial222802012Indicator BacteriaConfined Animal Feeding Operations (NPS) | Municipal Point Sources | Out-of-state source | Point Source | WastewaterDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)Revised 152New River Pathogen  08/14/2002 YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.2 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Previous listing for this pollutant was identified as Pathogens but the pollutant name has been updated as Indicator Bacteria for clarity and consistency. Line of Evidence No. 2950 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. LOEs 33248 and 4900 were combined to determine a final use support rating. LOEs 33247 and 4894 were combined to determine a final use support rating.In the "Water Quality Objectives" Chapter of the Basin Plan under "Bacteria" there are objectives for Enterococcus, E.coli, and fecal coliform. These three organisms are pathogen indicators in water.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list and placing it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA and is expected to result in attainment of the standard.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Listing Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Listing Policy.3. Twelve out of 12 water samples taken exceeded the Basin Plan Enterococcus Water Quality Objective, 98 of 98 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan fecal coliform objective, and 13 of 13 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan E.Coli objective . These exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy.4. The New River Pathogen TMDL was approved by the RWQCB in 2001 and approved by USEPA on 08/14/2002. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   49092010State Reviewed EnterococcusNon-Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal1010Ten water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 4/2003, at 4 locations in the New River. Of these total samples, 10 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 5/06/2002, 5/07/2002, 5/08/2002, 9/30/2002, 10/01/2002, 10/02/2002, and 4/09/2003 from all four locations (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In waters designated for noncontact water recreation (REC II) the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 500 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed in May and October 2002, and April 2003, at the International Boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The other two locations were samples in May and October of 2002. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 5/08/2002 through 5/09/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial184332012Organic Enrichment/Low Dissolved OxygenSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)Revised 18New River Dissolved Oxygen TMDL  11/16/2012 YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under 4.2 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two hundred one of 341 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective and these exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy.4. The New River Dissolved Oxygen TMDL has been approved by the RWQCB, R7 in 2010 and approved by USEPA on 11/16/2012.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   52392010State Reviewed Low Dissolved OxygenWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved11246One hundred and twelve water quality measurements were taken at 3 locations in the river, collected between 3/1973 and 2/1985. Out of these total measurements, 46 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences were found in measurements collected from 6/26/1973 through 9/19/1984 from 2 locations, near the International Boundary in Calexico, CA, and near Westmorland, CA (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: The dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below the following minimum levels at any time: Water designated WARM 5 mg/l (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Measurements were collected at the following New River locations: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca., USGS Station No. 10255502 located at Drop 4 near Brawley, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254970 near the International Boundary in Calexico, Ca.One hundred and twelve measurements were collected. Measurements were generally collected from 3/1973 through 2/1985. Fifty-four measurements were collected from 1973-1979, and 58 samples were collected from 1980-1985. The exceedences were found in measurements collected from 6/26/1973 through 9/19/1984. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial184332012Organic Enrichment/Low Dissolved OxygenSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)Revised 18New River Dissolved Oxygen TMDL  11/16/2012 YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under 4.2 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two hundred one of 341 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective and these exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy.4. The New River Dissolved Oxygen TMDL has been approved by the RWQCB, R7 in 2010 and approved by USEPA on 11/16/2012.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   29322006State ReviewedTMDL Completed List in 2002.Oxygen, DissolvedWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved00Samples were collected by the RWQCB during July of 1999. There were a total of 3264 measurements over 16 days. The objective was exceeded numerous times on 14 of those collection days (SWRCB, 2003).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedColorado River RWQCB Basin Plan: The dissolved oxygen concentration for waters designated as warm freshwater habitat shall not be reduced below 5 mg/L.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected on the New River at Mexicali.Measurements were taken every few minutes each day from 7/7/99 through 7/23/99. No measurements were taken on 7/20/99.Other information collected includes water temperature, conductivity, and pH.QA/QC used by RWQCB staff. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial184332012Organic Enrichment/Low Dissolved OxygenSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)Revised 18New River Dissolved Oxygen TMDL  11/16/2012 YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under 4.2 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two hundred one of 341 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective and these exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy.4. The New River Dissolved Oxygen TMDL has been approved by the RWQCB, R7 in 2010 and approved by USEPA on 11/16/2012.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   29312006State ReviewedTMDL Completed List in 2002Oxygen, DissolvedWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved11691Samples were collected on 83 different days from January 1997 through March 2004. Measurements were taken monthly. There were 83 exceedances of these 83 measurements. Samples were collected from January to December of 1999. Eighteen days of samples were collected and of the 18 samples there were 5 exceedances. D.O. levels dropped below 5 mg/L (3.54-4.95 mg/L) in 5 samples collected in June, July, August, and September. Samples were also collected by IID in 1997 and 1998. There were 3 exceedances of these 15 measurements (SWRQCB, 2003).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedColorado River RWQCB Basin Plan: The dissolved oxygen concentration for waters designated as warm freshwater habitat shall not be reduced below 5 mg/L.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  The 83 samples were collected from the New River at the International Boundary. Specific sample collection locations are unknown for the 18 and 15 sample sizes.The 83 samples collected each month from January 1997 to March 2004. There are no data for October, November, and December of 1999. The 18 samples were collected from 1/21/1999 through 12/14/1999. Samples were collected once a month, except during April through September when there were two samples collected each month. The 15 samples were collected monthly from 1/28/1997 through 3/17/1998.For the 83 samples, other field measurements include flow, temperature, pH, and conductivity. Field observations were also recorded. For the 18 samples, all measurements were taken at a depth of 0.5 meters. Samples were taken twice a month during the warmer months of April through September.Data used in 2002 assessment. Also used IID SOPs.QA/QC used by RWQCB staff. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial184332012Organic Enrichment/Low Dissolved OxygenSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)Revised 18New River Dissolved Oxygen TMDL  11/16/2012 YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under 4.2 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two hundred one of 341 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective and these exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy.4. The New River Dissolved Oxygen TMDL has been approved by the RWQCB, R7 in 2010 and approved by USEPA on 11/16/2012.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   328132012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21883Oxygen, DissolvedWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved124Four of the twelve samples exceeded the water quality objective for dissolved oxygen.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGFrom the Colorado River Water Quality Control Plan 'The dissolved Oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below the following minimum levels at any time: for waters designated as WARM-5.0 mg/L.'1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  The samples were collected at station New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY, and New River Outlet - 723NROTWM.The samples were collected between 10/25/2005-10/28/2008 The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial184332012Organic Enrichment/Low Dissolved OxygenSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)Revised 18New River Dissolved Oxygen TMDL  11/16/2012 YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under 4.2 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two hundred one of 341 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective and these exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy.4. The New River Dissolved Oxygen TMDL has been approved by the RWQCB, R7 in 2010 and approved by USEPA on 11/16/2012.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   340342012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25943Oxygen, DissolvedWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone9558There were 58 out of the 95 samples that had a DO level below 5.0 mg/L.1.Data for bacteria and temperature in Alamo River, New River (Imperial County), and Tijuana River, Jan 2006-Mar. 2010PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGFrom the Colorado River Water Quality Control Plan 'The dissolved Oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below the following minimum levels at any time: for waters designated as WARM-5.0 mg/L.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected at the following location: Lat. 32.665840 Lon. -115.502700(New River at International Boundary)Samples were collected twice a month between 01/11/06 and 03/10/10. EnviroMatrix Analytical Inc. Quality Assurance Program Manual (Controlled Document Number EMA-100.8.0001)1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial184332012Organic Enrichment/Low Dissolved OxygenSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)Revised 18New River Dissolved Oxygen TMDL  11/16/2012 YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under 4.2 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two hundred one of 341 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective and these exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy.4. The New River Dissolved Oxygen TMDL has been approved by the RWQCB, R7 in 2010 and approved by USEPA on 11/16/2012.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   340322012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25941Oxygen, DissolvedWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone62Two of the 6 samples had a DO level below 5 mg/L.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGFrom the Colorado River Water Quality Control Plan 'The dissolved Oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below the following minimum levels at any time: for waters designated as WARM-5.0 mg/L.'1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples collected at site 723NRBDRY (New River at Boundary).Data collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial182482012SedimentSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)Revised 153New River Sedimentation/Siltation  03/31/2003 YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE Nos. 24794 and 24795 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for listing under section 2.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2949 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. A New River Sediment TMDL was approved by the RWQCB in 2002 and subsequently approved by USEPA in 2003. The TMDL set a numeric target of 200 mg/l annual average Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentration. Implementation of the TMDL is expected to result in attainment of the standard. There were a total of 178 water samples collected representing 7 years of data. When comparing the samples results to the TMDL 200 mg/l annual average TSS numeric target for aquatic life uses, there were no years in which the annual average TSS exceeded the numeric target. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. A Sediment TMDL was develped and approved by the RWQCB in 2002 and subsequently approved by USEPA in 2003. Implementation of the TMDL is expected to result in attainment of the standard.4. At a minimum, None of 7 TSS annual averages exceeded the New River Sediment TMDL Numeric Target and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. However there are not enough annual averages to support delisting according to instructions given for Table 4.2. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   29492006State ReviewedNJK: This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.SedimentWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone00Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not Specified       QA Info Missing 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial182482012SedimentSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)Revised 153New River Sedimentation/Siltation  03/31/2003 YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE Nos. 24794 and 24795 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for listing under section 2.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2949 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. A New River Sediment TMDL was approved by the RWQCB in 2002 and subsequently approved by USEPA in 2003. The TMDL set a numeric target of 200 mg/l annual average Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentration. Implementation of the TMDL is expected to result in attainment of the standard. There were a total of 178 water samples collected representing 7 years of data. When comparing the samples results to the TMDL 200 mg/l annual average TSS numeric target for aquatic life uses, there were no years in which the annual average TSS exceeded the numeric target. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. A Sediment TMDL was develped and approved by the RWQCB in 2002 and subsequently approved by USEPA in 2003. Implementation of the TMDL is expected to result in attainment of the standard.4. At a minimum, None of 7 TSS annual averages exceeded the New River Sediment TMDL Numeric Target and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. However there are not enough annual averages to support delisting according to instructions given for Table 4.2. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   247942010State Reviewed Total Suspended Solids (TSS)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal30Eleven water samples were collected from two locations along the river over a 3 year period. Over these three years, none of the annual average TSS concentrations exceeded the TMDL Numeric Target (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only)Basin Plan: The Final Numeric Target for the New River Sedimentation Siltation TMDL for TSS is an annual average of 200 mg/l (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea near Calipatria, CA.Eleven water samples were generally collected from 4/2003 through 5/2005. Water samples were collected and analyzed in April and October of 2003, May and November of 2004, and May of 2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial182482012SedimentSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)Revised 153New River Sedimentation/Siltation  03/31/2003 YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE Nos. 24794 and 24795 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for listing under section 2.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2949 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. A New River Sediment TMDL was approved by the RWQCB in 2002 and subsequently approved by USEPA in 2003. The TMDL set a numeric target of 200 mg/l annual average Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentration. Implementation of the TMDL is expected to result in attainment of the standard. There were a total of 178 water samples collected representing 7 years of data. When comparing the samples results to the TMDL 200 mg/l annual average TSS numeric target for aquatic life uses, there were no years in which the annual average TSS exceeded the numeric target. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. A Sediment TMDL was develped and approved by the RWQCB in 2002 and subsequently approved by USEPA in 2003. Implementation of the TMDL is expected to result in attainment of the standard.4. At a minimum, None of 7 TSS annual averages exceeded the New River Sediment TMDL Numeric Target and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. However there are not enough annual averages to support delisting according to instructions given for Table 4.2. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   247952010State Reviewed Total Suspended Solids (TSS)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40One hundred and sixty-seven water samples were collected from 4 locations along the river over a 4 year period. Over these 4 years, none of the annual average TSS concentrations exceeded the TMDL Numeric Target (CRBRWQCB, 2007).1.Imperial Valley Sedimentation/Siltation TMDL Implementation Update, Staff Report to Regional Board, June 26, 2007. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only)Basin Plan: The Final Numeric Target for the New River Sedimentation Siltation TMDL for TSS is an annual average of 200 mg/l (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, Even Hewes Highway near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton sea near Calipatria, CA.One hundred and sixty-seven water samples were generally from 3/2003 through 12/2006. Samples were collected and analyzed monthly from 3/2003 through 12/2006. Samples were not collected from each site every month. Quality control for the sampling and analysis was conducted in accordance with an approved QAPP (CRBRWQCB, 2003b).1.Quality Assurance Project Plan for New River Siltation/Sedimentation TMDL Implementation. Palm Desert, CA: Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial203922012TrashOut-of-state sourceDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)Original 17New River Trash TMDL  09/24/2007 YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for listing under section 2.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2955 is a placeholder line of evidence, containing no data it is instead used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006.Based on the applicable factor, the New River Trash TMDL was approved by USEPA on September 24, 2007. The approved TMDL and implementation plan are expected to result in attainment of the standard.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed by USEPA approved TMDL portion of the section 303(d) list.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   29552006State ReviewedNJK: This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.TrashWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-NuisanceNot SpecifiedNone00Unspecified: This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not Specified    UnspecifiedUnspecifiedUnspecifiedQA Info Missing 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial219002012ChlordaneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Chlordane is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1950s to the early 1980s. However, Chlordane was banned for all uses in 1988 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 46079 and 5377 were combined. LOEs 2882 and 33361 were also combined to determine the use support rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-six of 40 fish tissue samples exceed the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   460782012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671277ChlordaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet52Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at Drop 6A Holtville Drain - 723ARDP6A, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River/Brawley - 723ARBRAW]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial219002012ChlordaneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Chlordane is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1950s to the early 1980s. However, Chlordane was banned for all uses in 1988 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 46079 and 5377 were combined. LOEs 2882 and 33361 were also combined to determine the use support rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-six of 40 fish tissue samples exceed the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   336502012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 24388ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one sample collected was non-detect for chlordane concentration. (Sum of trans-Chlordane, cis-Chlordane, cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor, and Oxychlordane)1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Chlordane in freshwater sediments is 17.6 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet).One sample was collected on 10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial219002012ChlordaneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Chlordane is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1950s to the early 1980s. However, Chlordane was banned for all uses in 1988 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 46079 and 5377 were combined. LOEs 2882 and 33361 were also combined to determine the use support rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-six of 40 fish tissue samples exceed the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   333612012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23400ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120None of the 12 samples exceeded the criterion continuous concentration for chlordane (total). Total chlordane is assessed as the sum of cis-chlordane, trans-chlordane, cis-nonachlor, trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe chlordane criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0043 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet) and 723ARINTL (Alamo River at International Boundary).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial219002012ChlordaneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Chlordane is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1950s to the early 1980s. However, Chlordane was banned for all uses in 1988 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 46079 and 5377 were combined. LOEs 2882 and 33361 were also combined to determine the use support rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-six of 40 fish tissue samples exceed the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   328472012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21816ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Zero of 8 samples collected for Chlordane (Sum of trans-Chlordane, cis-Chlordane, cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor, and Oxychlordane)exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Chlordane in freshwater sediments is 17.6 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial219002012ChlordaneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Chlordane is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1950s to the early 1980s. However, Chlordane was banned for all uses in 1988 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 46079 and 5377 were combined. LOEs 2882 and 33361 were also combined to determine the use support rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-six of 40 fish tissue samples exceed the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   460792012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671278ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at Drop 6A Holtville Drain - 723ARDP6A, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River/Brawley - 723ARBRAW]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial219002012ChlordaneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Chlordane is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1950s to the early 1980s. However, Chlordane was banned for all uses in 1988 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 46079 and 5377 were combined. LOEs 2882 and 33361 were also combined to determine the use support rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-six of 40 fish tissue samples exceed the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   55762010State Reviewed ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal351Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 1 whole fish sample collected at 1 location exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. At the International Boundary location an exceedance was found in 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 9/02/1987. (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations:at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the years 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. An exceedence was found in a sample collected 9/02/1987. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial219002012ChlordaneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Chlordane is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1950s to the early 1980s. However, Chlordane was banned for all uses in 1988 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 46079 and 5377 were combined. LOEs 2882 and 33361 were also combined to determine the use support rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-six of 40 fish tissue samples exceed the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   53772010State Reviewed ChlordaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal3524Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. The fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 23 fish fillet samples and 1 whole fish samples collected at two locations exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. At the Calipatria location the exceedances were found in; 11 Channel Catfish fillet composite samples collected on 3/12/1979, 5/08/1980, 5/23/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 5/23/1984, 9/17/1985, 9/30/1987, 11/01/1996, 11/20/1997, and 11/11/1998; 1 channel catfish single fish fillet on 10/27/1994; 8 Carp fillet composite samples collected on 5/23/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 5/23/1984, 9/17/1985, 11/18/1988, 8/03/1990, and 9/29/1993, and; 2 Carp single fish fillet samples on 10/27/1994, and 11/07/2000. At the International Boundary location the exceedances were found in; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 11/20/1998, and; 1 Mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 9/02/1987. (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 5.6 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 3/12/1979 through 11/07/2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial219002012ChlordaneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Chlordane is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1950s to the early 1980s. However, Chlordane was banned for all uses in 1988 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 46079 and 5377 were combined. LOEs 2882 and 33361 were also combined to determine the use support rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-six of 40 fish tissue samples exceed the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   50062010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial219002012ChlordaneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Chlordane is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1950s to the early 1980s. However, Chlordane was banned for all uses in 1988 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 46079 and 5377 were combined. LOEs 2882 and 33361 were also combined to determine the use support rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-six of 40 fish tissue samples exceed the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   28822006State ReviewedNJK: Use support rating could be insufficient information due to the detection limit being higher thant the chronic maximum.ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone140Data were collected by the RWQCB on 4/15/2003 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. All samples were non-detects with a detection limit of 0.025 ppb, so there were no exceedances. Samples were also collected by the RWQCB on 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. All samples were non-detects, with a detection limit of 1 ppb, so there were no exceedances (CRBRWQCB, 2004C).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUSEPA: 2.4 ppb freshwater acute maximum and freshwater chronic maximum = 0.0043 ppb as a 4-day average.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: AR-B (at the International Boundary), AR-D10 (Lower Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #10), AR-D8 (Central Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #8), AR-D6A (Holtville Main Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6A), AR-D6 (Rose Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6), AR-D3 (Central Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #3), and at AR-GRB.All samples were collected on 4/15/2003 and 6/21/2001. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial219002012ChlordaneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Chlordane is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1950s to the early 1980s. However, Chlordane was banned for all uses in 1988 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 46079 and 5377 were combined. LOEs 2882 and 33361 were also combined to determine the use support rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-six of 40 fish tissue samples exceed the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   323732012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21783ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one sample collected was non-detect and did not exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Chlordane (Sum of trans-Chlordane, cis-Chlordane, cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor, and Oxychlordane) in freshwater sediments is 17.6 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Alamo River Outlet (723ARGRB1).One sample was collected on 10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial191522012ChlorpyrifosSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of chlorpyrifos in the Alamo River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of chlorpyrifos into Alamo River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Thirteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5468 is replaced by LOE No. 46596, which is assessed a new standard. Thus, LOE No. 5468 is not included in final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Fifty-one of 71 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria for freshwater aquatic life use protection. This exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   458992012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671279ChlorpyrifosCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for chlorpyrifos in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at Drop 6A Holtville Drain - 723ARDP6A, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River/Brawley - 723ARBRAW]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial191522012ChlorpyrifosSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of chlorpyrifos in the Alamo River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of chlorpyrifos into Alamo River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Thirteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5468 is replaced by LOE No. 46596, which is assessed a new standard. Thus, LOE No. 5468 is not included in final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Fifty-one of 71 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria for freshwater aquatic life use protection. This exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   465962012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) ChlorpyrifosCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet350Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for chlorpyrifos in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisSamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the years 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial191522012ChlorpyrifosSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of chlorpyrifos in the Alamo River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of chlorpyrifos into Alamo River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Thirteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5468 is replaced by LOE No. 46596, which is assessed a new standard. Thus, LOE No. 5468 is not included in final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Fifty-one of 71 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria for freshwater aquatic life use protection. This exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   359182012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168316ChlorpyrifosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for chlorpyrifos is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.77 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg and Weston, 2007).1.Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial191522012ChlorpyrifosSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of chlorpyrifos in the Alamo River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of chlorpyrifos into Alamo River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Thirteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5468 is replaced by LOE No. 46596, which is assessed a new standard. Thus, LOE No. 5468 is not included in final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Fifty-one of 71 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria for freshwater aquatic life use protection. This exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   354262012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168197ChlorpyrifosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for chlorpyrifos is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.77 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg and Weston, 2007).1.Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial191522012ChlorpyrifosSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of chlorpyrifos in the Alamo River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of chlorpyrifos into Alamo River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Thirteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5468 is replaced by LOE No. 46596, which is assessed a new standard. Thus, LOE No. 5468 is not included in final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Fifty-one of 71 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria for freshwater aquatic life use protection. This exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   351872012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167675ChlorpyrifosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal22Twelve samples total were collected. Two samples were detected at levels above the evaluation guideline resulting in 2 exceedances. Ten samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005).Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial191522012ChlorpyrifosSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of chlorpyrifos in the Alamo River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of chlorpyrifos into Alamo River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Thirteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5468 is replaced by LOE No. 46596, which is assessed a new standard. Thus, LOE No. 5468 is not included in final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Fifty-one of 71 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria for freshwater aquatic life use protection. This exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   54682010State Reviewed ChlorpyrifosCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal350Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 10000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the years 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial191522012ChlorpyrifosSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of chlorpyrifos in the Alamo River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of chlorpyrifos into Alamo River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Thirteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5468 is replaced by LOE No. 46596, which is assessed a new standard. Thus, LOE No. 5468 is not included in final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Fifty-one of 71 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria for freshwater aquatic life use protection. This exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   52712010State Reviewed ChlorpyrifosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal10One water quality sample was taken at 1 location along the river, collected on 4/01/1992. This sample did not exceed the CDFG Hazardous Assessment Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.02 ug/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and GameA sample was collected at the following Alamo River location: USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.One sample was collected on 4/01/1992. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial191522012ChlorpyrifosSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of chlorpyrifos in the Alamo River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of chlorpyrifos into Alamo River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Thirteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5468 is replaced by LOE No. 46596, which is assessed a new standard. Thus, LOE No. 5468 is not included in final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Fifty-one of 71 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria for freshwater aquatic life use protection. This exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   51812010State Reviewed ChlorpyrifosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved128Twelve water quality samples were taken at 4 locations along the river, generally collected from 9/12/2006 through 4/17/2007. Of these total samples , 8 exceeded the CDFG Hazardous Assessment Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 10/14/2006, 10/16/2006, 10/17/2006, 11/13/2006, 2/13/2007, 3/12/2007, 3/14/2007, and 3/16/2007 from all four locations (Orlando et al, 2008).1."Pesticides in Water and Suspended Sediment of the Alamo and New Rivers, Imperial Valley/Salton Sea Basin, California, 2006-07". U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Final Report prepared in cooperation with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), delivered to the CRBRWQCB. Palm Desert, CA.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.02 ug/l (1 hr. ave.) for freshwater aquatic life use protection (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and GameSamples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: at the Outlet to the Salton Sea near Niland, CA, near Calipatria, CA, at Harris Road near Imperial, CA, and at the International Boundary with Mexico.Twelve samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 9/12/2006 through 4/17/2007. Samples were collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea monthly from 9/2006 through 11/2006 and 2/2007 through 4/2007. The other three sites were sampled twice, once in 10/2006 and another time in 3/2007. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 10/14/2006 through 3/16/2007. Investigators used USGS methods for sample collection and analysis. Lab analysis was done by the USGS Laboratories in Sacramento, CA. All methods were approved by State Board QA officer (USGS, 2007b).1.Quality Assurance Project Plan, Imperial Valley Pesticides TMDL Assessment Studies. Water Science Center. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial191522012ChlorpyrifosSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of chlorpyrifos in the Alamo River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of chlorpyrifos into Alamo River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Thirteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5468 is replaced by LOE No. 46596, which is assessed a new standard. Thus, LOE No. 5468 is not included in final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Fifty-one of 71 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria for freshwater aquatic life use protection. This exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   48592010State Reviewed ChlorpyrifosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved116Twenty-one water samples were taken at seven locations on the river. Ten water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The eleven acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 5/06/2002 through 5/09/2005 at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, six exceeded the CDFG Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 10/02/2002, 4/08/2003, 4/09/2003, 4/11/2003, 11/04/2003, and 10/05/2004, from the Drop 6 location, Sinclair Road location near Calipatria, CA, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea location on Garst Road bridge (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.02 ug/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and GameSamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, at Harris Road near Imperial, CA, Drop 6A, Drop 6, at Sinclair Road near Calipatria, CA, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road bridge.Twenty-one water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, usually in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary, and Outlet to the Salton Sea. Two additional samples were collected from these two locations in 4/2003. The rest of the locations were sampled once in 4/2003.The exceedences were found in samples collected from 10/02/2002 through 10/05/2004. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial191522012ChlorpyrifosSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of chlorpyrifos in the Alamo River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of chlorpyrifos into Alamo River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Thirteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5468 is replaced by LOE No. 46596, which is assessed a new standard. Thus, LOE No. 5468 is not included in final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Fifty-one of 71 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria for freshwater aquatic life use protection. This exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   48012010State Reviewed ChlorpyrifosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal156Fifteen water qualty samples were collected from three field events on 10/26/2004, 3/23/2005, and 6/07/2005, at five locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, 6 exceeded the CDFG Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 10/26/2004 and 3/23/2005 (CDPR, 2007).1.Data for pesticides in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Mar. 1993-Jun. 2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.02 ug/l (1 hr. ave.) for freshwater aquatic life use protection (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and GameSamples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: Garst Road, Holville Main Drain at Highway 115, Malva Drain near Park, Vail Drain near Young, Verde Drain and Bonds Corner Road.The samples were collected and analyzed from three field events on 10/26/2004, 3/23/2005, and 6/07/2005. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 10/26/2004 through 3/23/2005.Sampling was timed such that two of the sampling events took place during or immediately following periods of historically high pyrethroid use. Another sampling event took place during a period of relatively low historical pyrethroid use.Sampling methods described in Starner, 2004. Analysis performed by California Department of Food and AgricultureÂ’s Center for Analytical Chemistry, using quality control measures in accordance with Standard Operating Procedure QAQC001.00 (Segawa, 1995)1.“Study 224. A Preliminary Assessment of Pyrethroid Contamination of Surface Waters and Bed Sediments in High Pyrethroid-Use Regions of California”. California Department of Pesticide Regulation Environmental Monitoring Branch. Sacramento, CA. 2.QAQC001.00 Standard Operating Procedures. Chemistry Laboratory Quality Control. California Department of Pesticide Regulation Environmental Hazards Assessment Branch. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial191522012ChlorpyrifosSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of chlorpyrifos in the Alamo River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of chlorpyrifos into Alamo River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Thirteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5468 is replaced by LOE No. 46596, which is assessed a new standard. Thus, LOE No. 5468 is not included in final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Fifty-one of 71 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria for freshwater aquatic life use protection. This exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   48002010State Reviewed ChlorpyrifosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved108Ten water quality samples were collected every few weeks from 8/28/1996 through 3/25/1997, at one location in the Alamo River. Of these total samples, 8 exceeded the CDFG Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 8/28/1996, 9/10/1996, 10/01/1996, 10/21/1996, 10/31/1996, 11/12/1996, 11/18/1996, and 3/05/1997 (CDPR, 2007).1.Data for pesticides in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Mar. 1993-Jun. 2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.02 ug/l (1 hr. ave.) for freshwater aquatic life use protection (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and GameSamples were collected from the Alamo River at the Garst Road bridge.The samples were collected every few weeks from 8/28/1996 through 3/25/1997. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 8/28/1996 through 3/05/1997.The samples were collected every few weeks from August through November 1996 and from February through April 1997 to coincide with the pesticide application periods in the Imperial Valley (autumn and late winter/early spring) (Crepeau et al, 2002).Investigators used USGS QA/QC in sample collection and analysis. Lab analysis was done by the USGS California District Organic Chemistry Laboratory in Sacramento, California (Crepeau, 2002).1.“Dissolved Pesticides in the Alamo River and the Salton Sea, California, 1996-97.” United States Geological Survey. Sacramento, CA. Open file report No. 02-232. http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/of/ofr02232/
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial191522012ChlorpyrifosSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of chlorpyrifos in the Alamo River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of chlorpyrifos into Alamo River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Thirteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5468 is replaced by LOE No. 46596, which is assessed a new standard. Thus, LOE No. 5468 is not included in final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Fifty-one of 71 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria for freshwater aquatic life use protection. This exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   29142006State Reviewed ChlorpyrifosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal116Numeric data generated from 4 water samples collected as part of SWAMP and 7 samples collected by USGS. Six of these 11 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline (SWAMP, 2004; LeBlanc et al. 2004).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Department of Fish and Game guideline of 0.014 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Seven stations were sampled, all situated along the Alamo River from the international boundary with Mexico to the outlet (mouth) of the Alamo River into the Salton Sea.Four samples taken during the spring (May) and the fall (October) of 2002. Seven samples collected in April 2003, and the guideline was exceeded in 5 of them.The Alamo River flows from Mexico through the Imperial Valley in the Salton Sea. Most of the water flowing through it comes from agricultural return flows.SWAMP QAPP. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial191522012ChlorpyrifosSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of chlorpyrifos in the Alamo River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of chlorpyrifos into Alamo River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Thirteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5468 is replaced by LOE No. 46596, which is assessed a new standard. Thus, LOE No. 5468 is not included in final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Fifty-one of 71 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria for freshwater aquatic life use protection. This exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   47982010State Reviewed ChlorpyrifosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNot Recorded2323Twenty-three water quality samples were generally collected once or twice a month from 3/15/1993 through 2/14/1994 at nine locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, 23 exceeded the CDFG Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 9/27/1993, 10/04/1993, 10/18/1993, 11/01/1993, 11/29/1993, and 12/13/1993 (CDPR, 2007).1.Data for pesticides in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Mar. 1993-Jun. 2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.02 ug/l (1 hr. ave.) for freshwater aquatic life use protection (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and GameSamples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: at Outlet to the Salton Sea, Albright Road (Nectarine Drain Area), Shank Road (Magnolia Drain Area), downstream of Rose Drain, downstream of Holtville Main Drain, at the Harris Street Bridge, Worthington Road, Holtville WTP, Holtville, downstream of Verde Drain, and at the All American Canal intersection.The samples were generally collected and analyzed once or twice a month from 3/15/1993 through 2/14/1994.The exceedences were found in samples collected from 9/27/1993 through 12/13/1993. Investigators used UCD ATL methods for sample collection, and USEPA methods for analysis. Lab analysis was done by the Dept. of Pesticide, Eureka Laboratories, and Agriculture and Priority Pollutants Laboratories (APPL). QA/QC is described in DiGiorgio, 1994.1."Colorado River Basin Toxicity Report, Draft Final, March 1993 through February 1994” prepared for V. de Vlaming and G. Starrett, SWRCB; prepared by, UC Davis Dept of Medicine and Epidemiology. Sacramento, CA. Interagency Agreement No. 0-149-250-0.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial245792012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5370 is replaced by the LOE No. 46772, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline of 15 ppb for DDT in fish tissue. Therefore, the LOE No. 5370 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 45901 and 5584 were combined. LOEs 5183 and 2890 were also combined to determine use ratings. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of nine sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, 40 of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, 57 of 57 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT, 49 of 49 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDD, and 81 of 81 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDE.. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   329162012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21841DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal82Two of 8 samples collected for Sum DDE exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDE (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 31.3 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following stations: Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial245792012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5370 is replaced by the LOE No. 46772, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline of 15 ppb for DDT in fish tissue. Therefore, the LOE No. 5370 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 45901 and 5584 were combined. LOEs 5183 and 2890 were also combined to determine use ratings. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of nine sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, 40 of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, 57 of 57 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT, 49 of 49 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDD, and 81 of 81 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDE.. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   328882012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21828DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Zero of 8 samples collected for Sum DDD exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDD (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 28.0 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following stations: Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial245792012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5370 is replaced by the LOE No. 46772, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline of 15 ppb for DDT in fish tissue. Therefore, the LOE No. 5370 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 45901 and 5584 were combined. LOEs 5183 and 2890 were also combined to determine use ratings. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of nine sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, 40 of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, 57 of 57 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT, 49 of 49 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDD, and 81 of 81 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDE.. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   329572012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21853DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Zero of 8 samples collected for Total DDTs exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Total DDTs (DDD + DDE + DDT) in freshwater sediments is 572 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following stations: Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial245792012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5370 is replaced by the LOE No. 46772, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline of 15 ppb for DDT in fish tissue. Therefore, the LOE No. 5370 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 45901 and 5584 were combined. LOEs 5183 and 2890 were also combined to determine use ratings. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of nine sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, 40 of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, 57 of 57 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT, 49 of 49 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDD, and 81 of 81 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDE.. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   345232012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 26185DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00The detection limit for DDT(o,p) is 0.001 ug/l, and the reporting limit for that is 0.002 ug/l. Since the WQS is smaller than the reporting limit, none of samples can be counted. In addition the detection limit for DDT(p,p') is 0.002 ug/l and the reporting limit is 0.005 ug/l, none of the samples can be counted. The water body was assessed for the sum of DDT(o,p') and DDT(p,p').1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 4,4' DDT criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.001 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet) and 723ARINTL (Alamo River at International Boundary).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial245792012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5370 is replaced by the LOE No. 46772, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline of 15 ppb for DDT in fish tissue. Therefore, the LOE No. 5370 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 45901 and 5584 were combined. LOEs 5183 and 2890 were also combined to determine use ratings. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of nine sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, 40 of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, 57 of 57 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT, 49 of 49 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDD, and 81 of 81 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDE.. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   459002012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671280Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet55Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 5 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at Drop 6A Holtville Drain - 723ARDP6A, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River/Brawley - 723ARBRAW]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial245792012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5370 is replaced by the LOE No. 46772, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline of 15 ppb for DDT in fish tissue. Therefore, the LOE No. 5370 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 45901 and 5584 were combined. LOEs 5183 and 2890 were also combined to determine use ratings. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of nine sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, 40 of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, 57 of 57 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT, 49 of 49 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDD, and 81 of 81 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDE.. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   459012012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671281Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at Drop 6A Holtville Drain - 723ARDP6A, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River/Brawley - 723ARBRAW]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial245792012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5370 is replaced by the LOE No. 46772, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline of 15 ppb for DDT in fish tissue. Therefore, the LOE No. 5370 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 45901 and 5584 were combined. LOEs 5183 and 2890 were also combined to determine use ratings. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of nine sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, 40 of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, 57 of 57 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT, 49 of 49 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDD, and 81 of 81 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDE.. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   467722012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal3535Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fish samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 30 fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples collected at four locations exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. At the Calipatria location the exceedances were found in ;12 channel catfish fillet composite samples collected on 6/21/1978, 3/12/1979, 5/08/1980, 5/23/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 5/23/1984, 9/17/1985, 9/30/1987, 11/01/1996, 11/20/1997, and 11/11/1998; 2 channel catfish single fish fillet samples collected on 10/28/1989, and 10/27/1994: 1 red swamp crayfish sample collected on 5/8/1980; 8 carp fillet composite samples collected on 5/23/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 5/23/1984, 9/17/1985, 11/18/1988, 8/03/1990, and 9/29/1993; 3 carp single fish fillet samples collected on 6/21/1978, 10/27/1994, and 11/07/2000; 1 spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample collected on 9/20/1992, and; 1 red swampy crayfish whole fish composite sample collected on 3/12/1979. At the Brawley location 1 exceedance was found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 9/30/1993. At the Holtville location 1 exceedance was found in 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 9/30/1993. At the International Boundary location the exceedances were found in; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 11/20/1998, 1 largemouth bass fillet composite sample collected on 11/15/1985; 1 tilapia whole fish composite sample on 11/07/2000; 1 redshiner whole fish composite collected on 11/15/1985, and; 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 9/02/1987 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 6/21/1978 through 11/07/2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial245792012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5370 is replaced by the LOE No. 46772, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline of 15 ppb for DDT in fish tissue. Therefore, the LOE No. 5370 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 45901 and 5584 were combined. LOEs 5183 and 2890 were also combined to determine use ratings. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of nine sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, 40 of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, 57 of 57 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT, 49 of 49 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDD, and 81 of 81 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDE.. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   329362012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21847DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Zero of 8 samples collected for Sum DDT exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDT (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 62.9 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following stations: Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial245792012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5370 is replaced by the LOE No. 46772, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline of 15 ppb for DDT in fish tissue. Therefore, the LOE No. 5370 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 45901 and 5584 were combined. LOEs 5183 and 2890 were also combined to determine use ratings. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of nine sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, 40 of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, 57 of 57 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT, 49 of 49 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDD, and 81 of 81 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDE.. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   324122012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21792DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one sample collected was 1.447 ug/kg and did not exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDD in freshwater sediments is 28.0 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Alamo River Outlet (723ARGRB1).One sample was collected on 10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial245792012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5370 is replaced by the LOE No. 46772, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline of 15 ppb for DDT in fish tissue. Therefore, the LOE No. 5370 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 45901 and 5584 were combined. LOEs 5183 and 2890 were also combined to determine use ratings. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of nine sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, 40 of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, 57 of 57 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT, 49 of 49 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDD, and 81 of 81 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDE.. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   323962012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21791DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one sample collected was 19.558 ug/kg and did not exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDE in freshwater sediments is 31.3 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Alamo River Outlet (723ARGRB1).One sample was collected on 10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial245792012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5370 is replaced by the LOE No. 46772, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline of 15 ppb for DDT in fish tissue. Therefore, the LOE No. 5370 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 45901 and 5584 were combined. LOEs 5183 and 2890 were also combined to determine use ratings. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of nine sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, 40 of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, 57 of 57 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT, 49 of 49 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDD, and 81 of 81 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDE.. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   323952012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21790DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one sample collected was 2.032 ug/kg and did not exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDT in freshwater sediments is 62.9 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Alamo River Outlet (723ARGRB1).One sample was collected on 10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial245792012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5370 is replaced by the LOE No. 46772, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline of 15 ppb for DDT in fish tissue. Therefore, the LOE No. 5370 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 45901 and 5584 were combined. LOEs 5183 and 2890 were also combined to determine use ratings. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of nine sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, 40 of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, 57 of 57 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT, 49 of 49 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDD, and 81 of 81 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDE.. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   323942012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21789DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one sample collected was 23.067 ug/kg and did not exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Total DDTs in freshwater sediments is 572 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Alamo River Outlet (723ARGRB1).One sample was collected on 10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial245792012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5370 is replaced by the LOE No. 46772, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline of 15 ppb for DDT in fish tissue. Therefore, the LOE No. 5370 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 45901 and 5584 were combined. LOEs 5183 and 2890 were also combined to determine use ratings. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of nine sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, 40 of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, 57 of 57 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT, 49 of 49 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDD, and 81 of 81 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDE.. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   55842010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal3524Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 22 fish fillet samples and 2 whole fish samples collected at two locations exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. At the Calipatria location the exceedances were found in ;10 channel catfish fillet composite samples collected on 3/12/1979, 5/08/1980, 5/23/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 5/23/1984, 9/17/1985, 9/30/1987, 11/01/1996, and 11/20/1997; 8 carp fillet composite samples collected on 5/23/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 5/23/1984, 9/17/1985, 11/18/1988, 8/03/1990, and 9/29/1993, and; 3 carp single fish fillet samples collected on 6/21/1978, 10/27/1994, and 11/07/2000. At the International Boundary location the exceedances were found in; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 11/20/1998; 1 redshiner whole fish composite sample collected on 11/15/1985, and; 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 9/02/1987 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 1000 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Alamo River at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 6/21/1978 through 11/07/2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial245792012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5370 is replaced by the LOE No. 46772, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline of 15 ppb for DDT in fish tissue. Therefore, the LOE No. 5370 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 45901 and 5584 were combined. LOEs 5183 and 2890 were also combined to determine use ratings. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of nine sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, 40 of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, 57 of 57 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT, 49 of 49 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDD, and 81 of 81 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDE.. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   53782010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal3534Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fish samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 30 fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples collected at four locations exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. At the Calipatria location the exceedances were found in ;12 channel catfish fillet composite samples collected on 6/21/1978, 3/12/1979, 5/08/1980, 5/23/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 5/23/1984, 9/17/1985, 9/30/1987, 11/01/1996, 11/20/1997, and 11/11/1998; 2 channel catfish single fish fillet samples collected on 10/28/1989, and 10/27/1994: 8 carp fillet composite samples collected on 5/23/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 5/23/1984, 9/17/1985, 11/18/1988, 8/03/1990, and 9/29/1993; 3 carp single fish fillet samples collected on 6/21/1978, 10/27/1994, and 11/07/2000; 1 spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample collected on 9/20/1992, and; 1 red swampy crayfish whole fish composite sample collected on 3/12/1979. At the Brawley location 1 exceedance was found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 9/30/1993. At the Holtville location 1 exceedance was found in 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 9/30/1993. At the International Boundary location the exceedances were found in; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 11/20/1998, 1 largemouth bass fillet composite sample collected on 11/15/1985; 1 tilapia whole fish composite sample on 11/07/2000; 1 redshiner whole fish composite collected on 11/15/1985, and; 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 9/02/1987 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 21 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 6/21/1978 through 11/07/2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial245792012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5370 is replaced by the LOE No. 46772, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline of 15 ppb for DDT in fish tissue. Therefore, the LOE No. 5370 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 45901 and 5584 were combined. LOEs 5183 and 2890 were also combined to determine use ratings. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of nine sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, 40 of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, 57 of 57 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT, 49 of 49 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDD, and 81 of 81 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDE.. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   51992010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal5757Eighty-seven water samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Thirty water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 57 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Of these total samples, 57 exceeded the CTR Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 8/13/1969 through 4/01/1992 at 2 locations (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.00059 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.Eighty-seven samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Eight samples were collected in 1969, 78 samples were collected from 1970-1979, no samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 1 sample was collected from 1990-1999. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 8/13/1969 through 4/01/1992. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007). 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial245792012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5370 is replaced by the LOE No. 46772, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline of 15 ppb for DDT in fish tissue. Therefore, the LOE No. 5370 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 45901 and 5584 were combined. LOEs 5183 and 2890 were also combined to determine use ratings. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of nine sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, 40 of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, 57 of 57 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT, 49 of 49 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDD, and 81 of 81 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDE.. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   51972010State Reviewed p,p'-DDECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal8181Eighty-seven water samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Six water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 81 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Of these total samples, 81 exceeded the CTR Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 8/13/1969 through 4/01/1992 at 2 locations (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 0.00059 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.Eighty-seven samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Eight samples were collected in 1969, 78 samples were collected from 1970-1979, 0 samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 1 sample was collected from 1990-1999. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 8/13/1969 through 4/01/1992. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial245792012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5370 is replaced by the LOE No. 46772, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline of 15 ppb for DDT in fish tissue. Therefore, the LOE No. 5370 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 45901 and 5584 were combined. LOEs 5183 and 2890 were also combined to determine use ratings. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of nine sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, 40 of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, 57 of 57 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT, 49 of 49 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDD, and 81 of 81 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDE.. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   51942010State Reviewed p,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal4949Eighty-seven water samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Thirty-eight water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 49 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Of these total samples, 49 exceeded the CTR Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 8/13/1969 through 4/01/1992 at 2 locations (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 0.00084 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.Eighty-seven samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Eight samples were collected in 1969, 78 samples were collected from 1970-1979, no samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 1 sample was collected from 1990-1999. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 8/13/1969 through 4/01/1992. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial245792012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5370 is replaced by the LOE No. 46772, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline of 15 ppb for DDT in fish tissue. Therefore, the LOE No. 5370 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 45901 and 5584 were combined. LOEs 5183 and 2890 were also combined to determine use ratings. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of nine sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, 40 of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, 57 of 57 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT, 49 of 49 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDD, and 81 of 81 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDE.. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   51902010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal581Eighty-seven water samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Twenty-eight water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 58 acceptable water quality samples were collected from 8/1969 through 4/92 at 2 locations in the river. Of these total samples , one exceeded the CTR Criteria. The exceedence was found in a sample collected on 11/19/1975 at Drop 3 near Calipatria, CA (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.1 ug/l p,p'-DDT for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254730 located near Niland, Ca., USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca.Eighty-seven samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Eight samples were collected in 1969, 78 samples were collected from 1970-1979, no samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 1 sample was collected from 1990-1992. The exceedence was from a sample collected on 11/19/1975. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial245792012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5370 is replaced by the LOE No. 46772, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline of 15 ppb for DDT in fish tissue. Therefore, the LOE No. 5370 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 45901 and 5584 were combined. LOEs 5183 and 2890 were also combined to determine use ratings. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of nine sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, 40 of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, 57 of 57 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT, 49 of 49 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDD, and 81 of 81 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDE.. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   51832010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Twelve water quality samples were taken at 4 locations along the river, generally collected from 9/12/2006 through 4/17/2007. Of these total samples , none exceeded the CTR Criteria (Orlando et al, 2008).1."Pesticides in Water and Suspended Sediment of the Alamo and New Rivers, Imperial Valley/Salton Sea Basin, California, 2006-07". U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Final Report prepared in cooperation with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), delivered to the CRBRWQCB. Palm Desert, CA.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.1 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: at the Outlet to the Salton Sea near Niland, CA, near Calipatria, CA, at Harris Road near Imperial, CA, and at the International Boundary with Mexico.Twelve samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 9/12/2006 through 4/17/2007. Samples were collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea monthly from 9/06 through 11/06 and 2/07 through 4/07. The other three sites were sampled twice, once in 10/2006 and another time in 3/2007. Investigators used USGS methods for sample collection and analysis. Lab analysis was done by the USGS Laboratories in Sacramento, CA. All methods were approved by State Board QA officer (USGS, 2007b).1.Quality Assurance Project Plan, Imperial Valley Pesticides TMDL Assessment Studies. Water Science Center. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial245792012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5370 is replaced by the LOE No. 46772, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline of 15 ppb for DDT in fish tissue. Therefore, the LOE No. 5370 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 45901 and 5584 were combined. LOEs 5183 and 2890 were also combined to determine use ratings. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of nine sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, 40 of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, 57 of 57 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT, 49 of 49 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDD, and 81 of 81 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDE.. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   50052010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved190Nineteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.1 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, at Harris Road near Imperial, CA, Drop 6A, Drop 6, at Sinclair Road near Calipatria, CA,and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ninteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in April 2003 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial245792012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5370 is replaced by the LOE No. 46772, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline of 15 ppb for DDT in fish tissue. Therefore, the LOE No. 5370 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 45901 and 5584 were combined. LOEs 5183 and 2890 were also combined to determine use ratings. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of nine sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, 40 of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, 57 of 57 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT, 49 of 49 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDD, and 81 of 81 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDE.. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   48572010State Reviewed p,p'-DDECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved1111Twenty-one water samples were taken at 7 locations on the river. Ten water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water sample were generally collected and analyzed twice a year, from 5/06/2002 through 10/05/2004, at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, 11 exceeded the CTR Criteria The exceedences were found in samples collected on 5/06/2002,4/8/2003, 4/9/2003, 4/11/2003, 4/15/2003, 11/04/2003, 5/03/2004, and 10/05/2004 from the International Boundary location, at Drop 6A, at Drop 6, at Sinclair Road near Calipatria, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea location on Garst Road bridge.(SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.00059 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, at Harris Rd near Imperial CA, Drop 6A, Drop 6, at Sinclair Rd near Calpatria, CA, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road bridge.Twenty-one water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, usually in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea. Two additional samples were collected from these two locations in 4/2003. Drop 10, at Harris Rd, Drop6, Drop 6A, and Sinlcair Rd near Imperial, CA locations were sampled once in 4/2003. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 5/06/2002 through 10/05/2004. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial245792012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5370 is replaced by the LOE No. 46772, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline of 15 ppb for DDT in fish tissue. Therefore, the LOE No. 5370 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 45901 and 5584 were combined. LOEs 5183 and 2890 were also combined to determine use ratings. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of nine sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for DDE, 40 of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, 57 of 57 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT, 49 of 49 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDD, and 81 of 81 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for DDE.. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   28902006State ReviewedNJK: Use support rating could be insufficient information due to the detection limit being higher thant the chronic maximum.DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone140Samples were collected by the RWQCB on 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations. All samples were non-detects, with a detection limit of 0.1 ppb. Samples were also collected by the RWQCB on 4/15/2003 at 7 different stations. All samples were non-detects, with a detection limit of 0.018 ppb. Therefore, there were no exceedances of the total 14 samples (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCTR: freshwater acute maximum = 1.1 ppb for 4,4'DDT and freshwater chronic maximum = 0.001 ppb for 4,4'DDT as a 4-day average.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: AR-B (at the International Boundary), AR-D10 (Lower Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #10), AR-D8 (Central Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #8), AR-D6A (Holtville Main Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6A), AR-D6 (Rose Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6), AR-D3 (Central Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #3), and at AR-GRB.All samples were collected on 4/15/2003 and 6/21/2001. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218462012DiazinonSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Diazinon in the Alamo River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Diazinon into Alamo River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5469 is reassessed based on the current evaluation guideline (OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal), and is replaced by the LOE No. 46597. Thus, the LOE No. 5469 is not included in final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. 71 of 181 water samples exceed the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria, and three of 12 water samples exceed the freshwater chronic value for diazinon. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   48032010State Reviewed DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved104Ten water quality samples were collected every few weeks from 8/28/1996 through 3/25/1997 at one location on the Alamo River. Of these total samples, 4 exceeded the CDFG Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 10/01/1996, 10/21/1996, 10/31/1996, and 11/12/1996 (CDPR, 2007).1.Data for pesticides in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Mar. 1993-Jun. 2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.16 ug/l (1 hr. ave.) for freshwater aquatic life use protection (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and GameSamples were collected from the Alamo River at Garst Road bridge.Ten water samples were collected. The samples were collected every few weeks from 8/28/1996 through 3/25/1997. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 10/01/1996 through 11/12/1996.The samples were collected every few weeks from August through November 1996 and from February through April 1997 to coincide with the pesticide application periods in the Imperial Valley (autumn and late winter/early spring) (Crepeau et al, 2002).Investigators used USGS QA/QC in sample collection and analysis. Lab analysis was done by the USGS California District Organic Chemistry Laboratory in Sacramento, California (Crepeau, 2002)1.“Dissolved Pesticides in the Alamo River and the Salton Sea, California, 1996-97.” United States Geological Survey. Sacramento, CA. Open file report No. 02-232. http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/of/ofr02232/
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218462012DiazinonSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Diazinon in the Alamo River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Diazinon into Alamo River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5469 is reassessed based on the current evaluation guideline (OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal), and is replaced by the LOE No. 46597. Thus, the LOE No. 5469 is not included in final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. 71 of 181 water samples exceed the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria, and three of 12 water samples exceed the freshwater chronic value for diazinon. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   48022010State Reviewed DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNot Recorded8434Eighty-four water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed once or twice a month from 3/15/1993 through 2/14/1994 at nine locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, 34 exceeded the CDFG Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 3/15/1993, 6/21/1993, 9/27/1993, 10/04/1993, 10/18/1993, 11/01/1993, 11/29/1993, 12/13/1993, 1/24/1994, and 2/14/1994 (CDPR, 2007).1.Data for pesticides in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Mar. 1993-Jun. 2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.16 ug/l (1 hr. ave.) for freshwater aquatic life use protection (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and GameSamples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: at Outlet to the Salton Sea, Albright Road (Nectarine Drain Area), Shank Road (Magnolia Drain Area), downstream of Rose Drain, downstream of Holtville Main Drain, at the Harris Street Bridge, Worthington Road, Holtville WTP, Holtville, downstream of Verde Drain, and at the All American Canal intersection.Eighty-four water samples were collected. The samples were generally collected and analyzed once or twice a month from 3/15/1993 through 2/14/1994. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 3/15/1993 through 2/14/1994. Investigators used UCD ATL methods for sample collection, and USEPA methods for analysis. Lab analysis was done by the Dept. of Pesticide, Eureka Laboratories, and Agriculture and Priority Pollutants Laboratories (APPL). QA/QC is described in DiGiorgio, 1994.1."Colorado River Basin Toxicity Report, Draft Final, March 1993 through February 1994” prepared for V. de Vlaming and G. Starrett, SWRCB; prepared by, UC Davis Dept of Medicine and Epidemiology. Sacramento, CA. Interagency Agreement No. 0-149-250-0.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218462012DiazinonSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Diazinon in the Alamo River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Diazinon into Alamo River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5469 is reassessed based on the current evaluation guideline (OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal), and is replaced by the LOE No. 46597. Thus, the LOE No. 5469 is not included in final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. 71 of 181 water samples exceed the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria, and three of 12 water samples exceed the freshwater chronic value for diazinon. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   465972012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) DiazinonCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet350Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fish samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal.1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for diazinon in fish tissue is 1,500 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisSamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Calipatria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218462012DiazinonSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Diazinon in the Alamo River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Diazinon into Alamo River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5469 is reassessed based on the current evaluation guideline (OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal), and is replaced by the LOE No. 46597. Thus, the LOE No. 5469 is not included in final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. 71 of 181 water samples exceed the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria, and three of 12 water samples exceed the freshwater chronic value for diazinon. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   460132012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671282DiazinonCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for diazinon in fish tissue is 1,500 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at Drop 6A Holtville Drain - 723ARDP6A, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River/Brawley - 723ARBRAW]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218462012DiazinonSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Diazinon in the Alamo River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Diazinon into Alamo River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5469 is reassessed based on the current evaluation guideline (OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal), and is replaced by the LOE No. 46597. Thus, the LOE No. 5469 is not included in final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. 71 of 181 water samples exceed the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria, and three of 12 water samples exceed the freshwater chronic value for diazinon. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   359372012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168319DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for diazinon is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 11 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 11 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for diazinon from Ding et al. (2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218462012DiazinonSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Diazinon in the Alamo River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Diazinon into Alamo River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5469 is reassessed based on the current evaluation guideline (OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal), and is replaced by the LOE No. 46597. Thus, the LOE No. 5469 is not included in final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. 71 of 181 water samples exceed the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria, and three of 12 water samples exceed the freshwater chronic value for diazinon. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   48042010State Reviewed DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal153Fifteen water quality samples were collected from three field events on 10/26/2004, 3/23/2005, and 6/07/2005 at five locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, 3 exceeded the CDFG Criteria. All three exceedences were found in samples collected on 10/26/04 (CDPR, 2007).1.Data for pesticides in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Mar. 1993-Jun. 2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.16 ug/l (1 hr. ave.) for freshwater aquatic life use protection (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and GameSamples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: Garst Road, Holtville Main Drain at Highway 115, Malva Drain near Park, Vail Drain near Young, Verde Drain and Bonds Corner Road.Fifteen water samples were collected. The samples were collected and analyzed from three field events on 10/26/2004, 3/23/2005, and 6/07/2005. All three exceedences were found in samples collected on 10/26/04.Sampling was timed such that two of the sampling events took place during or immediately following periods of historically high pyrethroid use. Another sampling event took place during a period of relatively low historical pyrethroid use.Sampling methods described in Starner, 2004. Analysis performed by California Department of Food and AgricultureÂ’s Center for Analytical Chemistry using quality control measures in accordance with Standard Operating Procedure QAQC001.00 (Segawa, 1995).1.“Study 224. A Preliminary Assessment of Pyrethroid Contamination of Surface Waters and Bed Sediments in High Pyrethroid-Use Regions of California”. California Department of Pesticide Regulation Environmental Monitoring Branch. Sacramento, CA. 2.QAQC001.00 Standard Operating Procedures. Chemistry Laboratory Quality Control. California Department of Pesticide Regulation Environmental Hazards Assessment Branch. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218462012DiazinonSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Diazinon in the Alamo River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Diazinon into Alamo River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5469 is reassessed based on the current evaluation guideline (OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal), and is replaced by the LOE No. 46597. Thus, the LOE No. 5469 is not included in final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. 71 of 181 water samples exceed the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria, and three of 12 water samples exceed the freshwater chronic value for diazinon. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   351932012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167727DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal123Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Finlayson, 2004).1.Water quality for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and GameData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218462012DiazinonSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Diazinon in the Alamo River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Diazinon into Alamo River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5469 is reassessed based on the current evaluation guideline (OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal), and is replaced by the LOE No. 46597. Thus, the LOE No. 5469 is not included in final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. 71 of 181 water samples exceed the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria, and three of 12 water samples exceed the freshwater chronic value for diazinon. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   54692010State Reviewed DiazinonCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal350Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fish samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 300 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Calipatria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218462012DiazinonSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Diazinon in the Alamo River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Diazinon into Alamo River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5469 is reassessed based on the current evaluation guideline (OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal), and is replaced by the LOE No. 46597. Thus, the LOE No. 5469 is not included in final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. 71 of 181 water samples exceed the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria, and three of 12 water samples exceed the freshwater chronic value for diazinon. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   52052010State Reviewed DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal6028Sixty-nine water samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Nine water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 60 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 1/1971 through 4/1992. Of these total samples, 28 exceeded the CDFG Hazardous Assessment Criteria (USGS, 2007). The exceedences were found in samples collected from 1/18/1971, 10/07/1975, 11/19/1975, 1/29/1976, 2/18/1976, 3/17/1976, 6/02/1976, 9/22/1976, 3/22/1977, 4/19/1977, 9/13/1977, 10/20/1977, 11/08/1977, 1/25/1978/ 3/22/.1978/ 4/26/1978/ and 9/27/1978 from the two locations. (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.16 ug/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and GameSamples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.Sixty-nine samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 1/1971 through 4/1992. Twenty-six samples were collected from 1971 to 1979, 41 from 1980 to 1989, and 1 in 1992. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 1/18/1971 through 9/27/1978. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218462012DiazinonSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Diazinon in the Alamo River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Diazinon into Alamo River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5469 is reassessed based on the current evaluation guideline (OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal), and is replaced by the LOE No. 46597. Thus, the LOE No. 5469 is not included in final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. 71 of 181 water samples exceed the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria, and three of 12 water samples exceed the freshwater chronic value for diazinon. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   51852010State Reviewed DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved124Twelve water quality samples were taken at 4 locations along the river, generally collected from 9/12/2006 through 4/17/2007. Of these total samples , 4 exceeded the CDFG Hazardous Assessment Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 10/14/2006, 10/16/2006, 10/17/2006, and 11/13/2006 from three locations, at the Outlet to the Salton Sea near Niland, CA, near Calipatria, CA, and at Harris Road near Imperial, CA (Orlando et al, 2008).1."Pesticides in Water and Suspended Sediment of the Alamo and New Rivers, Imperial Valley/Salton Sea Basin, California, 2006-07". U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Final Report prepared in cooperation with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), delivered to the CRBRWQCB. Palm Desert, CA.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.16 ug/l (1 hr. ave.) for freshwater aquatic life use protection (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and GameSamples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: at the Outlet to the Salton Sea near Niland, CA, near Calipatria, CA, at Harris Road near Imperial, CA, and at the International Boundary with Mexico.Twelve water samples were collected. Samples were collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea monthly from 9/06 through 11/07 and 2/07 through 4/07. The other sites were sampled only twice, once in 10/2006 and another time in 3/2007. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 10/14/2006 through 11/13/2006. Investigators used USGS methods for sample collection and analysis. Lab analysis was done by the USGS Laboratories in Sacramento, CA. All methods were approved by State Board QA officer (USGS, 2007b).1.Quality Assurance Project Plan, Imperial Valley Pesticides TMDL Assessment Studies. Water Science Center. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218462012DiazinonSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Diazinon in the Alamo River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Diazinon into Alamo River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5469 is reassessed based on the current evaluation guideline (OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal), and is replaced by the LOE No. 46597. Thus, the LOE No. 5469 is not included in final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. 71 of 181 water samples exceed the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria, and three of 12 water samples exceed the freshwater chronic value for diazinon. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   48672010State Reviewed DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved202Twenty water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples , 2 exceeded the CDFG Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 10/02/2002, and 10/05/2004 from the outlet to the Salton Sea location (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.16 ug/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and GameSamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, at Harris Road near Imperial, CA, Drop 6A, Drop 6, at Sinclair Road near Calipatria, CA,and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road bridge.Twenty water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, usually in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary, and Outlet to the Salton Sea. Two additional samples were collected in 4/2003 from these two locations. The rest of the locations were sampled once in 4/2003.The exceedences were found in samples collected from 10/02/2002 through 10/05/2004. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial218462012DiazinonSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Diazinon in the Alamo River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Diazinon into Alamo River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5469 is reassessed based on the current evaluation guideline (OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal), and is replaced by the LOE No. 46597. Thus, the LOE No. 5469 is not included in final use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. 71 of 181 water samples exceed the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria, and three of 12 water samples exceed the freshwater chronic value for diazinon. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   355072012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168227DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for diazinon is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 11 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 11 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for diazinon from Ding et al. (2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial183812012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5379 is replaced by the LOE No. 46598 with a new evaluation guideline, and is not inclued in final use rating. LOE No. 2883 from 2006 is not icluded in the final use rating because it contains false information about the data. The LOE described that all 14 water samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of acute or chronic criteria (Data Used to Assess Water Quality), but it shows contradictory exceedances (Number of Exceedences) with14 out of 14 exceedances. Staff could not tract the original data to verify whether all 14 water samples were non-detect or all were exceeded. Thus, LOE No. 2883 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 5006 is combined with LOE No. 5257 and 35304 for a use rating determiantion because they were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE Nos 5105, 35514, and 35305 are combined for a use rating. LOEs 46015 and 55940 are combined to determine a use rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Fifty-eight of 58 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems, and 35 of 35 fish tissue samples exceed the OEHHA FCG. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   50062010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial183812012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5379 is replaced by the LOE No. 46598 with a new evaluation guideline, and is not inclued in final use rating. LOE No. 2883 from 2006 is not icluded in the final use rating because it contains false information about the data. The LOE described that all 14 water samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of acute or chronic criteria (Data Used to Assess Water Quality), but it shows contradictory exceedances (Number of Exceedences) with14 out of 14 exceedances. Staff could not tract the original data to verify whether all 14 water samples were non-detect or all were exceeded. Thus, LOE No. 2883 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 5006 is combined with LOE No. 5257 and 35304 for a use rating determiantion because they were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE Nos 5105, 35514, and 35305 are combined for a use rating. LOEs 46015 and 55940 are combined to determine a use rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Fifty-eight of 58 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems, and 35 of 35 fish tissue samples exceed the OEHHA FCG. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   48692010State Reviewed DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved33Fourteen water samples were taken at two locations on the river. Eleven water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The three acceptible water quality samples were collected on and analyzed biannually from 5/06/2002, 11/04/2003, and 5/04/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. All three exceeded the CTR Criteria. (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.00014 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October.The exceedences were found in samples collected from 5/06/2002 through 5/03/2004. in samples collected from 5/06/2002 through 5/03/2004. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial183812012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5379 is replaced by the LOE No. 46598 with a new evaluation guideline, and is not inclued in final use rating. LOE No. 2883 from 2006 is not icluded in the final use rating because it contains false information about the data. The LOE described that all 14 water samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of acute or chronic criteria (Data Used to Assess Water Quality), but it shows contradictory exceedances (Number of Exceedences) with14 out of 14 exceedances. Staff could not tract the original data to verify whether all 14 water samples were non-detect or all were exceeded. Thus, LOE No. 2883 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 5006 is combined with LOE No. 5257 and 35304 for a use rating determiantion because they were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE Nos 5105, 35514, and 35305 are combined for a use rating. LOEs 46015 and 55940 are combined to determine a use rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Fifty-eight of 58 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems, and 35 of 35 fish tissue samples exceed the OEHHA FCG. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   51052010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Naphthalene | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial183812012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5379 is replaced by the LOE No. 46598 with a new evaluation guideline, and is not inclued in final use rating. LOE No. 2883 from 2006 is not icluded in the final use rating because it contains false information about the data. The LOE described that all 14 water samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of acute or chronic criteria (Data Used to Assess Water Quality), but it shows contradictory exceedances (Number of Exceedences) with14 out of 14 exceedances. Staff could not tract the original data to verify whether all 14 water samples were non-detect or all were exceeded. Thus, LOE No. 2883 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 5006 is combined with LOE No. 5257 and 35304 for a use rating determiantion because they were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE Nos 5105, 35514, and 35305 are combined for a use rating. LOEs 46015 and 55940 are combined to determine a use rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Fifty-eight of 58 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems, and 35 of 35 fish tissue samples exceed the OEHHA FCG. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   52012010State Reviewed DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal5555Eighty-seven water samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Thirty-two water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 55 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Of these total samples, 55 exceeded the CTR Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 8/13/1969 through 4/01/1992 at 2 locations (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.00014 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.Eighty-seven samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Eight samples were collected in 1969, 78 samples were collected from 1970-1979, no samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 1 sample was collected from 1990-1992. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 8/13/1969 through 4/01/1992. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial183812012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5379 is replaced by the LOE No. 46598 with a new evaluation guideline, and is not inclued in final use rating. LOE No. 2883 from 2006 is not icluded in the final use rating because it contains false information about the data. The LOE described that all 14 water samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of acute or chronic criteria (Data Used to Assess Water Quality), but it shows contradictory exceedances (Number of Exceedences) with14 out of 14 exceedances. Staff could not tract the original data to verify whether all 14 water samples were non-detect or all were exceeded. Thus, LOE No. 2883 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 5006 is combined with LOE No. 5257 and 35304 for a use rating determiantion because they were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE Nos 5105, 35514, and 35305 are combined for a use rating. LOEs 46015 and 55940 are combined to determine a use rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Fifty-eight of 58 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems, and 35 of 35 fish tissue samples exceed the OEHHA FCG. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   52572010State Reviewed DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal550Eighty seven samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Thirty-two water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 55 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Of these total samples, none exceed the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) 0.24 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.Eighty-seven samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Eight samples were collected in 1969, 78 samples were collected from 1970-1979, 0 samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 1 sample was collected from 1990-1992. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial183812012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5379 is replaced by the LOE No. 46598 with a new evaluation guideline, and is not inclued in final use rating. LOE No. 2883 from 2006 is not icluded in the final use rating because it contains false information about the data. The LOE described that all 14 water samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of acute or chronic criteria (Data Used to Assess Water Quality), but it shows contradictory exceedances (Number of Exceedences) with14 out of 14 exceedances. Staff could not tract the original data to verify whether all 14 water samples were non-detect or all were exceeded. Thus, LOE No. 2883 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 5006 is combined with LOE No. 5257 and 35304 for a use rating determiantion because they were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE Nos 5105, 35514, and 35305 are combined for a use rating. LOEs 46015 and 55940 are combined to determine a use rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Fifty-eight of 58 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems, and 35 of 35 fish tissue samples exceed the OEHHA FCG. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   53792010State Reviewed DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal3030Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Two fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish samples could not be used in the assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentrations. The 28 fish fillet samples and 2 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 28 fish fillet samples and 2 whole fish samples collected at four locations exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. At the Calipatria location the exceedances were found in ;12 channel catfish fillet composite samples collected on 6/21/1978, 3/12/1979, 5/08/1980, 5/23/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 5/23/1984, 9/17/1985, 9/30/1987, 11/01/1996, 11/20/1997, and 11/11/1998; 2 channel catfish single fish fillet samples collected on 10/28/1989, and 10/27/1994:7 carp fillet composite samples collected on 5/23/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 9/17/1985, 11/18/1988, 8/03/1990, and 9/29/1993; 3 carp single fish fillet samples collected on 6/21/1978, 10/27/1994, and 11/07/2000, and; 1 spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample collected on 9/20/1992. At the Brawley location 1 exceedance was found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 9/30/1993. At the Holtville location 1 exceedance was found in 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 9/30/1993. At the International Boundary location the exceedances were found in; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 11/20/1998, 1 redshiner whole fish composite sample collected on 11/15/1985, and; 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 9/02/1987 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 0.46 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 2.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 6/21/1978 through 11/07/2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial183812012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5379 is replaced by the LOE No. 46598 with a new evaluation guideline, and is not inclued in final use rating. LOE No. 2883 from 2006 is not icluded in the final use rating because it contains false information about the data. The LOE described that all 14 water samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of acute or chronic criteria (Data Used to Assess Water Quality), but it shows contradictory exceedances (Number of Exceedences) with14 out of 14 exceedances. Staff could not tract the original data to verify whether all 14 water samples were non-detect or all were exceeded. Thus, LOE No. 2883 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 5006 is combined with LOE No. 5257 and 35304 for a use rating determiantion because they were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE Nos 5105, 35514, and 35305 are combined for a use rating. LOEs 46015 and 55940 are combined to determine a use rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Fifty-eight of 58 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems, and 35 of 35 fish tissue samples exceed the OEHHA FCG. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   55942010State Reviewed DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal351Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fish samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 1 fish fillet sample exceeded the NAS tissue guideline at 1 location. At the Calipatria location an exceedance was found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 4/22/1982 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. An exceedance was found in a sample collected on 4/22/1982. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial183812012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5379 is replaced by the LOE No. 46598 with a new evaluation guideline, and is not inclued in final use rating. LOE No. 2883 from 2006 is not icluded in the final use rating because it contains false information about the data. The LOE described that all 14 water samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of acute or chronic criteria (Data Used to Assess Water Quality), but it shows contradictory exceedances (Number of Exceedences) with14 out of 14 exceedances. Staff could not tract the original data to verify whether all 14 water samples were non-detect or all were exceeded. Thus, LOE No. 2883 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 5006 is combined with LOE No. 5257 and 35304 for a use rating determiantion because they were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE Nos 5105, 35514, and 35305 are combined for a use rating. LOEs 46015 and 55940 are combined to determine a use rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Fifty-eight of 58 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems, and 35 of 35 fish tissue samples exceed the OEHHA FCG. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   352622012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167746DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twelve samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Dieldrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial183812012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5379 is replaced by the LOE No. 46598 with a new evaluation guideline, and is not inclued in final use rating. LOE No. 2883 from 2006 is not icluded in the final use rating because it contains false information about the data. The LOE described that all 14 water samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of acute or chronic criteria (Data Used to Assess Water Quality), but it shows contradictory exceedances (Number of Exceedences) with14 out of 14 exceedances. Staff could not tract the original data to verify whether all 14 water samples were non-detect or all were exceeded. Thus, LOE No. 2883 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 5006 is combined with LOE No. 5257 and 35304 for a use rating determiantion because they were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE Nos 5105, 35514, and 35305 are combined for a use rating. LOEs 46015 and 55940 are combined to determine a use rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Fifty-eight of 58 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems, and 35 of 35 fish tissue samples exceed the OEHHA FCG. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   353042012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167758DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Dieldrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial183812012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5379 is replaced by the LOE No. 46598 with a new evaluation guideline, and is not inclued in final use rating. LOE No. 2883 from 2006 is not icluded in the final use rating because it contains false information about the data. The LOE described that all 14 water samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of acute or chronic criteria (Data Used to Assess Water Quality), but it shows contradictory exceedances (Number of Exceedences) with14 out of 14 exceedances. Staff could not tract the original data to verify whether all 14 water samples were non-detect or all were exceeded. Thus, LOE No. 2883 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 5006 is combined with LOE No. 5257 and 35304 for a use rating determiantion because they were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE Nos 5105, 35514, and 35305 are combined for a use rating. LOEs 46015 and 55940 are combined to determine a use rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Fifty-eight of 58 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems, and 35 of 35 fish tissue samples exceed the OEHHA FCG. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   353052012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167759DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for dieldrin is 61.8 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial183812012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5379 is replaced by the LOE No. 46598 with a new evaluation guideline, and is not inclued in final use rating. LOE No. 2883 from 2006 is not icluded in the final use rating because it contains false information about the data. The LOE described that all 14 water samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of acute or chronic criteria (Data Used to Assess Water Quality), but it shows contradictory exceedances (Number of Exceedences) with14 out of 14 exceedances. Staff could not tract the original data to verify whether all 14 water samples were non-detect or all were exceeded. Thus, LOE No. 2883 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 5006 is combined with LOE No. 5257 and 35304 for a use rating determiantion because they were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE Nos 5105, 35514, and 35305 are combined for a use rating. LOEs 46015 and 55940 are combined to determine a use rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Fifty-eight of 58 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems, and 35 of 35 fish tissue samples exceed the OEHHA FCG. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   355142012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168295DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for dieldrin is 61.8 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial183812012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5379 is replaced by the LOE No. 46598 with a new evaluation guideline, and is not inclued in final use rating. LOE No. 2883 from 2006 is not icluded in the final use rating because it contains false information about the data. The LOE described that all 14 water samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of acute or chronic criteria (Data Used to Assess Water Quality), but it shows contradictory exceedances (Number of Exceedences) with14 out of 14 exceedances. Staff could not tract the original data to verify whether all 14 water samples were non-detect or all were exceeded. Thus, LOE No. 2883 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 5006 is combined with LOE No. 5257 and 35304 for a use rating determiantion because they were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE Nos 5105, 35514, and 35305 are combined for a use rating. LOEs 46015 and 55940 are combined to determine a use rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Fifty-eight of 58 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems, and 35 of 35 fish tissue samples exceed the OEHHA FCG. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   460142012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671283DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet55Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 5 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at Drop 6A Holtville Drain - 723ARDP6A, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River/Brawley - 723ARBRAW]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial183812012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5379 is replaced by the LOE No. 46598 with a new evaluation guideline, and is not inclued in final use rating. LOE No. 2883 from 2006 is not icluded in the final use rating because it contains false information about the data. The LOE described that all 14 water samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of acute or chronic criteria (Data Used to Assess Water Quality), but it shows contradictory exceedances (Number of Exceedences) with14 out of 14 exceedances. Staff could not tract the original data to verify whether all 14 water samples were non-detect or all were exceeded. Thus, LOE No. 2883 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 5006 is combined with LOE No. 5257 and 35304 for a use rating determiantion because they were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE Nos 5105, 35514, and 35305 are combined for a use rating. LOEs 46015 and 55940 are combined to determine a use rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Fifty-eight of 58 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems, and 35 of 35 fish tissue samples exceed the OEHHA FCG. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   28832006State Reviewed DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone1414Data were collected by the RWQCB on 4/15/2003 and 6/21/01 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. Of the 14 samples, all samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of the criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUSEPA: freshwater acute maximum = 0.24 ppb. USEPA: freshwater chronic maximum = 0.056 ppb.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  The Alamo River from Holtville Drain to the outlet into the Salton Sea only. Samples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: AR-B (at the International Boundary), AR-D10 (Lower Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #10), AR-D8 (Central Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #8), AR-D6A (Holtville Main Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6A), AR-D6 (Rose Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6), AR-D3 (Central Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #3), and at AR-GRB.All samples were collected on 4/15/2003 and 6/21/01. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial183812012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5379 is replaced by the LOE No. 46598 with a new evaluation guideline, and is not inclued in final use rating. LOE No. 2883 from 2006 is not icluded in the final use rating because it contains false information about the data. The LOE described that all 14 water samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of acute or chronic criteria (Data Used to Assess Water Quality), but it shows contradictory exceedances (Number of Exceedences) with14 out of 14 exceedances. Staff could not tract the original data to verify whether all 14 water samples were non-detect or all were exceeded. Thus, LOE No. 2883 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 5006 is combined with LOE No. 5257 and 35304 for a use rating determiantion because they were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE Nos 5105, 35514, and 35305 are combined for a use rating. LOEs 46015 and 55940 are combined to determine a use rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Fifty-eight of 58 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems, and 35 of 35 fish tissue samples exceed the OEHHA FCG. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   465982012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal3030Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Two fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish samples could not be used in the assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentrations. The 28 fish fillet samples and 2 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 28 fish fillet samples and 2 whole fish samples collected at four locations exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. At the Calipatria location the exceedances were found in ;12 channel catfish fillet composite samples collected on 6/21/1978, 3/12/1979, 5/08/1980, 5/23/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 5/23/1984, 9/17/1985, 9/30/1987, 11/01/1996, 11/20/1997, and 11/11/1998; 2 channel catfish single fish fillet samples collected on 10/28/1989, and 10/27/1994:7 carp fillet composite samples collected on 5/23/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 9/17/1985, 11/18/1988, 8/03/1990, and 9/29/1993; 3 carp single fish fillet samples collected on 6/21/1978, 10/27/1994, and 11/07/2000, and; 1 spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample collected on 9/20/1992. At the Brawley location 1 exceedance was found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 9/30/1993. At the Holtville location 1 exceedance was found in 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 9/30/1993. At the International Boundary location the exceedances were found in; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 11/20/1998, 1 redshiner whole fish composite sample collected on 11/15/1985, and; 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 9/02/1987 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 6/21/1978 through 11/07/2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial183812012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Fifteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5379 is replaced by the LOE No. 46598 with a new evaluation guideline, and is not inclued in final use rating. LOE No. 2883 from 2006 is not icluded in the final use rating because it contains false information about the data. The LOE described that all 14 water samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of acute or chronic criteria (Data Used to Assess Water Quality), but it shows contradictory exceedances (Number of Exceedences) with14 out of 14 exceedances. Staff could not tract the original data to verify whether all 14 water samples were non-detect or all were exceeded. Thus, LOE No. 2883 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 5006 is combined with LOE No. 5257 and 35304 for a use rating determiantion because they were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE Nos 5105, 35514, and 35305 are combined for a use rating. LOEs 46015 and 55940 are combined to determine a use rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Fifty-eight of 58 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems, and 35 of 35 fish tissue samples exceed the OEHHA FCG. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA IN 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   460152012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671284DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at Drop 6A Holtville Drain - 723ARDP6A, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River/Brawley - 723ARBRAW]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial187992012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. PCBs are one of the OC compounds, which were used in a wide variety of applications, including dielectric fluids in transformers and capacitors, heat transfer fluids, and lubricants.in the 1970s. However, PCBs were banned for all uses in 1979 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOE No. 5382 is replaced by the LOE No. 46623, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5382 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 46059 and 5640 were combined to determine a use support rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3 Eight of 10 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA in 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   29012006State Reviewed PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone70Data were collected by the RWQCB on 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. Of the 7 samples, all samples were non-detects and did not exceed the criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUSEPA: freshwater acute total PCB's maximum = 2 ppb. USEPA: freshwater chronic total PCB's maximum = 0.014 ppb.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  The Alamo River from Central Drain to the outlet into the Salton Sea only. Samples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: AR-B (at the International Boundary), AR-D10 (Lower Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #10), AR-D8 (Central Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #8), AR-D6A (Holtville Main Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6A), AR-D6 (Rose Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6), AR-D3 (Central Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #3), and at AR-GRB.All samples were collected on 6/21/2001. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial187992012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. PCBs are one of the OC compounds, which were used in a wide variety of applications, including dielectric fluids in transformers and capacitors, heat transfer fluids, and lubricants.in the 1970s. However, PCBs were banned for all uses in 1979 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOE No. 5382 is replaced by the LOE No. 46623, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5382 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 46059 and 5640 were combined to determine a use support rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3 Eight of 10 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA in 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   53822010State Reviewed PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal55Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Twenty-six fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and it could not be determined that the detection limit was not below the criteria concentration. The 4 fish fillet samples and 1 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 9/1985 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 4 fish fillet samples and 1 whole fish samples collected at two locations exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. At the Calipatria location the exceedances were found in ;2 carp fillet composite samples collected on 9/17/1985, and 8/03/1990, and; 2 carp single fish fillet samples on 10/27/1994, and 11/07/2000. At the International Boundary location an exceedance was found in 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 9/02/1987 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 3.6 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 9/17/1985 through 11/07/2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial187992012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. PCBs are one of the OC compounds, which were used in a wide variety of applications, including dielectric fluids in transformers and capacitors, heat transfer fluids, and lubricants.in the 1970s. However, PCBs were banned for all uses in 1979 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOE No. 5382 is replaced by the LOE No. 46623, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5382 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 46059 and 5640 were combined to determine a use support rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3 Eight of 10 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA in 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   56402010State Reviewed PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal350Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fish samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 500 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial187992012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. PCBs are one of the OC compounds, which were used in a wide variety of applications, including dielectric fluids in transformers and capacitors, heat transfer fluids, and lubricants.in the 1970s. However, PCBs were banned for all uses in 1979 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOE No. 5382 is replaced by the LOE No. 46623, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5382 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 46059 and 5640 were combined to determine a use support rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3 Eight of 10 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA in 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   332322012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23850PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Zero of 1 sample collected for Total PCBs exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total PCB is 676 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet).The samples were collected on 10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial187992012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. PCBs are one of the OC compounds, which were used in a wide variety of applications, including dielectric fluids in transformers and capacitors, heat transfer fluids, and lubricants.in the 1970s. However, PCBs were banned for all uses in 1979 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOE No. 5382 is replaced by the LOE No. 46623, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5382 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 46059 and 5640 were combined to determine a use support rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3 Eight of 10 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA in 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   334112012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23410PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40None of the 4 samples exceeded the criterion continuous concentration for total PCB. The water body was assessed for the 3 aroclors that were contained within the data set and they include aroclor 1248, aroclor 1254, and aroclor 1260.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe total PCB criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.014 ug/L. This value corresponds to the sum of aroclors 1242, 1254, 1221, 1232, 1248, 1260, and 1016 (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet) and 723ARINTL (Alamo River at International Boundary).Samples collected between 4/21/2008 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial187992012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. PCBs are one of the OC compounds, which were used in a wide variety of applications, including dielectric fluids in transformers and capacitors, heat transfer fluids, and lubricants.in the 1970s. However, PCBs were banned for all uses in 1979 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOE No. 5382 is replaced by the LOE No. 46623, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5382 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 46059 and 5640 were combined to determine a use support rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3 Eight of 10 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA in 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   334182012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23829PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Zero of 8 samples collected for Total PCBs exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total PCB is 676 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following stations 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet) and 723ARINTL (Alamo River at International Boundary).The samples were collected on 10/26/2005, 5/1/2006, 10/23/2007 and 4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial187992012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. PCBs are one of the OC compounds, which were used in a wide variety of applications, including dielectric fluids in transformers and capacitors, heat transfer fluids, and lubricants.in the 1970s. However, PCBs were banned for all uses in 1979 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOE No. 5382 is replaced by the LOE No. 46623, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5382 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 46059 and 5640 were combined to determine a use support rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3 Eight of 10 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA in 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   460522012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671297PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet53Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, Tilapia spp. and flathead catfish. Composites were averaged for species collected at the same time and location. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for Tilapia spp. and flathead catfish. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for polychlorinated biphenyls in fish tissue is 2.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at Drop 6A Holtville Drain - 723ARDP6A, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River/Brawley - 723ARBRAW]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial187992012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. PCBs are one of the OC compounds, which were used in a wide variety of applications, including dielectric fluids in transformers and capacitors, heat transfer fluids, and lubricants.in the 1970s. However, PCBs were banned for all uses in 1979 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOE No. 5382 is replaced by the LOE No. 46623, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5382 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 46059 and 5640 were combined to determine a use support rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3 Eight of 10 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA in 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   460592012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671298PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, Tilapia spp. and flathead catfish. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for Tilapia spp. and flathead catfish. Composites were averaged for species collected at the same time and location. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total PCB concentration of 500 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at Drop 6A Holtville Drain - 723ARDP6A, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River/Brawley - 723ARBRAW]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial187992012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. PCBs are one of the OC compounds, which were used in a wide variety of applications, including dielectric fluids in transformers and capacitors, heat transfer fluids, and lubricants.in the 1970s. However, PCBs were banned for all uses in 1979 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOE No. 5382 is replaced by the LOE No. 46623, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5382 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 46059 and 5640 were combined to determine a use support rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3 Eight of 10 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA in 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   466232012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal55Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Twenty-six fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and it could not be determined that the detection limit was not below the criteria concentration. The 4 fish fillet samples and 1 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 9/1985 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 4 fish fillet samples and 1 whole fish samples collected at two locations exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. At the Calipatria location the exceedances were found in ;2 carp fillet composite samples collected on 9/17/1985, and 8/03/1990, and; 2 carp single fish fillet samples on 10/27/1994, and 11/07/2000. At the International Boundary location an exceedance was found in 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 9/02/1987 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for polychlorinated biphenyls in fish tissue is 2.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 9/17/1985 through 11/07/2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184782012ToxapheneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Toxaphene is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used in the 1970s and early 1980s. However, Toxaphene was banned for all uses in 1990 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-four of 24 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and twenty-four of 37 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA in 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   28882006State Reviewed ToxapheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone140Data were collected by the RWQCB on 4/15/2003 and 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. Of the 14 samples, all samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of the criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUSEPA: freshwater acute maximum = 0.73 ppb. USEPA: freshwater chronic maximum = 0.0002 ppb.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  The Alamo River from Central Drain to the outlet into the Salton Sea only. Samples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: AR-B (at the International Boundary), AR-D10 (Lower Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #10), AR-D8 (Central Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #8), AR-D6A (Holtville Main Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6A), AR-D6 (Rose Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6), AR-D3 (Central Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #3), and at AR-GRB.All samples were collected on 4/15/2003 and 6/21/2001. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and North Coast Labs. A Quality Assurance Manual was also provided. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184782012ToxapheneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Toxaphene is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used in the 1970s and early 1980s. However, Toxaphene was banned for all uses in 1990 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-four of 24 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and twenty-four of 37 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA in 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   54852010State Reviewed ToxapheneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal2424Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Eight fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish samples could not be used in the assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentrations. The 22 fish fillet samples and 2 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 3/1979 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 22 fish fillet samples and 2 whole fish samples collected at two locations exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. At the Calipatria location the exceedances were found in ;10 channel catfish fillet composite samples collected on 3/12/1979, 5/08/1980, 5/23/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 5/23/1984, 9/30/1987, 11/01/1996, 11/20/1997, and 11/11/1998; 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample collected on 10/27/1994: 8 carp fillet composite samples collected on 5/23/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 5/23/84, 9/17/1985, 11/18/1988, 8/03/1990, and 9/29/1993, and; 2 carp single fish fillet samples collected on 10/27/1994, and 11/07/2000. At the International Boundary location the exceedances were found in; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 11/20/1988, 1 redshiner whole fish composite sample collected on 11/15/1985, and; 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 9/02/1987 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 6.1 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 3/12/1979 through 1107/2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184782012ToxapheneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Toxaphene is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used in the 1970s and early 1980s. However, Toxaphene was banned for all uses in 1990 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-four of 24 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and twenty-four of 37 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA in 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   460692012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671301ToxapheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, Tilapia spp. and flathead catfish. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for Tilapia spp. and flathead catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Toxaphene concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at Drop 6A Holtville Drain - 723ARDP6A, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River/Brawley - 723ARBRAW]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184782012ToxapheneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Toxaphene is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used in the 1970s and early 1980s. However, Toxaphene was banned for all uses in 1990 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-four of 24 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and twenty-four of 37 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA in 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   460612012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671300ToxapheneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, Tilapia spp. and flathead catfish. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for Tilapia spp. and flathead catfish. Nine samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for toxaphene in fish tissue is 4.3 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at Drop 6A Holtville Drain - 723ARDP6A, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River/Brawley - 723ARBRAW]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184782012ToxapheneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Toxaphene is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used in the 1970s and early 1980s. However, Toxaphene was banned for all uses in 1990 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Alamo River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of Alamo River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The Alamo River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-four of 24 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and twenty-four of 37 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the Alamo River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2001 and approved by the USEPA in 2002. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   56512010State Reviewed ToxapheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal3224Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Two fish fillet samples and 1 whole fish samples could not be used in the assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentrations. The 28 fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 3/1979 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 22 fish fillet samples and 2 whole fish samples collected at two locations exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. At the Calipatria location the exceedances were found in ;10 channel catfish fillet composite samples collected on 3/12/1979, 5/08/1980, 5/23/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 5/23/1984, 9/30/1987, 11/01/1996, 11/20/1997, and 11/11/1998; 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample on 10/27/1994; 8 carp fillet composite samples collected on 5/23/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 5/23/84, 9/17/1985, 11/18/1988, 8/03/1990, and 9/29/1993, and; 2 carp single fish fillet samples on 10/27/1994, and 11/07/2000. At the International Boundary location the exceedances were found in; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 11/20/1998, 1 redshiner whole fish composite collected on 11/15/1985, and; 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 9/02/1987 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 3/12/1979 through 11/07/2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial191202012ChlordaneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory action:Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, and New River Sediment TMDL. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Chlordane is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1950s to the early 1980s. However, Chlordane was banned for all uses in 1988 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the IVDs have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of IVDs OC compounds.Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDLs and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). IVDs WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5438 is replaced by the LOE No. 46768, which is assessed based on current evaluation guideline. Therefore, LOE No. 5438 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46001 is combined with LOE No. 5581 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 34768 is combined with LOE No. 7652 for the aforementioned reasons. LOE No. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-three of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and these exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition has been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005, and is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for Chlordane only applies to the Barbara Worth Drain, Peach Drain, Greeson Drain, South Central Drain, and Holtville Main Drain areas of the Imperial Valley drains.467682012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) ChlordaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal4020Twenty-one fish fillet samples and nineteen whole fish samples were taken at 14 locations in Imperial Valley drains. The fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 9 fish fillet samples and 10 whole fish samples collected at 10 locations exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. At Holtville Main drain exceedances were found in 2 channel catfish fillet composite samples collected on 10/28/1989, and 12/05/1999. At Central drain exceedances were found in 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 12/05/1999, and 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 11/08/2000. At South Central drain exceedances were found in 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample collected on 12/05/1999, and 1 carp single fish fillet collected on 8/01/1990. At Rice drain 3 an exceedance was found in 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 10/10/1985. At Greeson exceedances were found in 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 11/15/1985, 1 spiny soft-shelled turtle collected on 9/18/1992, and 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 11/07/2000. At Pumice drain an exceedance was found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 11/20/1990. At Mayflower drain an exceedance was found in 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 8/16/1991. At Peach drain exceedances were found in 2 mosquitofish whole fish composite samples collected on 10/28/1995, and 11/03/1996, and 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 9/17/1992. At Barbara Worth drain exceedances were found in 2 mosquitofish whole fish composite samples collected on (2)11/08/2000, and 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 9/17/1992. At Warren Drain an exceedance was found in 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 9/09/1990 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Rice drain 3, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach Drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, and Warren drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, tilapia, flathead catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle, redbelly tilapia, and yellow bullhead were collected. Eight carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1985, 1986, 1988, (3)1990, and 1999. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989-90. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. One flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. One yellow bullhead fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Nineteen whole fish samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Twelve mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in 1985, 1989, (2)1990, (3)1991, 1995-96, and (3)2000. Seven sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, (2)2000. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 10/10/1985 through 11/08/2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial191202012ChlordaneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory action:Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, and New River Sediment TMDL. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Chlordane is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1950s to the early 1980s. However, Chlordane was banned for all uses in 1988 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the IVDs have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of IVDs OC compounds.Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDLs and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). IVDs WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5438 is replaced by the LOE No. 46768, which is assessed based on current evaluation guideline. Therefore, LOE No. 5438 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46001 is combined with LOE No. 5581 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 34768 is combined with LOE No. 7652 for the aforementioned reasons. LOE No. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-three of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and these exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition has been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005, and is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for Chlordane only applies to the Barbara Worth Drain, Peach Drain, Greeson Drain, South Central Drain, and Holtville Main Drain areas of the Imperial Valley drains.460012012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671429ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. Eleven composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial191202012ChlordaneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory action:Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, and New River Sediment TMDL. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Chlordane is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1950s to the early 1980s. However, Chlordane was banned for all uses in 1988 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the IVDs have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of IVDs OC compounds.Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDLs and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). IVDs WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5438 is replaced by the LOE No. 46768, which is assessed based on current evaluation guideline. Therefore, LOE No. 5438 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46001 is combined with LOE No. 5581 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 34768 is combined with LOE No. 7652 for the aforementioned reasons. LOE No. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-three of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and these exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition has been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005, and is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for Chlordane only applies to the Barbara Worth Drain, Peach Drain, Greeson Drain, South Central Drain, and Holtville Main Drain areas of the Imperial Valley drains.460002012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671428ChlordaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet43Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. Eleven composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial191202012ChlordaneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory action:Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, and New River Sediment TMDL. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Chlordane is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1950s to the early 1980s. However, Chlordane was banned for all uses in 1988 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the IVDs have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of IVDs OC compounds.Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDLs and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). IVDs WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5438 is replaced by the LOE No. 46768, which is assessed based on current evaluation guideline. Therefore, LOE No. 5438 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46001 is combined with LOE No. 5581 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 34768 is combined with LOE No. 7652 for the aforementioned reasons. LOE No. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-three of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and these exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition has been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005, and is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for Chlordane only applies to the Barbara Worth Drain, Peach Drain, Greeson Drain, South Central Drain, and Holtville Main Drain areas of the Imperial Valley drains.55812010State Reviewed ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal401Twenty-one fish fillet samples and nineteen whole fish samples were taken at 14 locations in Imperial Valley drains. The fish samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 1 fish fillet samples collected at 1 location exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. At Rice drain 3 an exceedence was found in 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 10/10/1985. (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Rice drain 3, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach Drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, and Warren drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, tilapia, flathead catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle, redbelly tilapia, and yellow bullhead were collected. Eight carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1985, 1986, 1988, (3)1990, and 1999. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989-90. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. One flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. One yellow bullhead fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Nineteen whole fish samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Twelve mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in 1985, 1989, (2)1990, (3)1991, 1995-96, and (3)2000. Seven sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, (2)2000. An exceedance was found in a sample collected on 10/10/1985. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial191202012ChlordaneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory action:Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, and New River Sediment TMDL. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Chlordane is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1950s to the early 1980s. However, Chlordane was banned for all uses in 1988 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the IVDs have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of IVDs OC compounds.Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDLs and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). IVDs WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5438 is replaced by the LOE No. 46768, which is assessed based on current evaluation guideline. Therefore, LOE No. 5438 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46001 is combined with LOE No. 5581 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 34768 is combined with LOE No. 7652 for the aforementioned reasons. LOE No. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-three of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and these exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition has been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005, and is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for Chlordane only applies to the Barbara Worth Drain, Peach Drain, Greeson Drain, South Central Drain, and Holtville Main Drain areas of the Imperial Valley drains.54382010State Reviewed ChlordaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal4019Twenty-one fish fillet samples and nineteen whole fish samples were taken at 14 locations in Imperial Valley drains. The fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 9 fish fillet samples and 10 whole fish samples collected at 10 locations exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. At Holtville Main drain exceedances were found in 2 channel catfish fillet composite samples collected on 10/28/1989, and 12/05/1999. At Central drain exceedances were found in 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 12/05/1999, and 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 11/08/2000. At South Central drain exceedances were found in 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample collected on 12/05/1999, and 1 carp single fish fillet collected on 8/01/1990. At Rice drain 3 an exceedance was found in 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 10/10/1985. At Greeson exceedances were found in 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 11/15/1985, 1 spiny soft-shelled turtle collected on 9/18/1992, and 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 11/07/2000. At Pumice drain an exceedance was found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 11/20/1990. At Mayflower drain an exceedance was found in 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 8/16/1991. At Peach drain exceedances were found in 2 mosquitofish whole fish composite samples collected on 10/28/1995, and 11/03/1996, and 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 9/17/1992. At Barbara Worth drain exceedances were found in 2 mosquitofish whole fish composite samples collected on (2)11/08/2000, and 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 9/17/1992. At Warren Drain an exceedance was found in 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 9/09/1990 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 5.6 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Rice drain 3, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach Drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, and Warren drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, tilapia, flathead catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle, redbelly tilapia, and yellow bullhead were collected. Eight carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1985, 1986, 1988, (3)1990, and 1999. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989-90. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. One flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. One yellow bullhead fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Nineteen whole fish samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Twelve mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in 1985, 1989, (2)1990, (3)1991, 1995-96, and (3)2000. Seven sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, (2)2000. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 10/10/1985 through 11/08/2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial224392012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory action:Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, and New River Sediment TMDL. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S for agricultural uses., and concentrations of OC compounds in the IVDs have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of IVDs OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDLs and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). IVDs WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Thirty-nine of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and four of four fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and none of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition has been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005, and is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  The listing for DDT only applies to the Barbara Worth Drain, Peach Drain, and Rice Drain areas of the Imperial Valley drains.461662012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671432Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. Eleven composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial224392012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory action:Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, and New River Sediment TMDL. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S for agricultural uses., and concentrations of OC compounds in the IVDs have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of IVDs OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDLs and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). IVDs WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Thirty-nine of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and four of four fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and none of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition has been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005, and is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  The listing for DDT only applies to the Barbara Worth Drain, Peach Drain, and Rice Drain areas of the Imperial Valley drains.50582010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.1 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial224392012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory action:Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, and New River Sediment TMDL. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S for agricultural uses., and concentrations of OC compounds in the IVDs have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of IVDs OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDLs and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). IVDs WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Thirty-nine of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and four of four fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and none of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition has been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005, and is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  The listing for DDT only applies to the Barbara Worth Drain, Peach Drain, and Rice Drain areas of the Imperial Valley drains.54392010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal4039Twenty-one fish fillet samples and nineteen whole fish samples were taken at 14 locations in Imperial Valley drains. The fish samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 20 fish fillet samples and 19 whole fish samples collected at 15 locations exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. At Rose drain exceedances were found in 1 carp fillet composite sample, and 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample. At Holtville Main drain exceedances were found in 2 channel catfish fillet composite samples, 1 tilapia fillet compostie sample, and 1 carp fillet composite sample. At Central drain exceedances were found in 1 carp fillet composite sample, 1 flathead catfish single fish fillet sample, and 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample. At South Central drain exceedances were found in 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample, 1 carp single fish fillet sample, 1 spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample, and 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample. At Rice drain 3 exceedances were found in 2 carp fillet composite samples. At Verde drain an exceedance was found in 1 carp single fish fillet sample. At Greeson exceedances were found in 1 carp fillet composite sample, 1 yellow bullhead fillet composite sample, 1 spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample, and 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample. At Fig drain exceedances were found in 1 carp fillet composite sample, 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample, and 3 sailfin molly whole fish composite samples. At Pumice drain exceedances were found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample, 1 tilapia fish composite sample, and 1 carp fillet composite sample. At Mayflower drain an exceedance was found in 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample. At Orange drain an exceedance was found in 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample. At Peach drain exceedances were found in 2 mosquitofish whole fish composite samples, and 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample. At Tokay drain an exceedance was found in 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample. At Barbara Worth drain exceedances were found in 2 mosquitofish whole fish composite samples, and 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample. At Warren drain exceedances were found in 2 mosquitofish whole fish composite samples (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 21 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Rice drain 3, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach Drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, and Warren drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, tilapia, flathead catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle, redbelly tilapia, and yellow bullhead were collected. Eight carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1985, 1986, 1988, (3)1990, and 1999. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989-90. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. One flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. One yellow bullhead fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Nineteen whole fish samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Twelve mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in 1985, 1989, (2)1990, (3)1991, 1995-96, and (3)2000. Seven sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, (2)2000. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 9/10/1985 through 12/05/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial224392012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory action:Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, and New River Sediment TMDL. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S for agricultural uses., and concentrations of OC compounds in the IVDs have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of IVDs OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDLs and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). IVDs WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Thirty-nine of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and four of four fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and none of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition has been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005, and is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  The listing for DDT only applies to the Barbara Worth Drain, Peach Drain, and Rice Drain areas of the Imperial Valley drains.55912010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal4014Twenty-one fish fillet samples and nineteen whole fish samples were taken at 14 locations in Imperial Valley drains. The fish samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 5 fish fillet samples and 9 whole fish samples collected at 9 locations exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. At Central drain an exceedance was found in 1 carp fillet composite sample. At South Central drain exceedances were found in 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample, 1 carp single fish fillet sample. At Rice drain 3 exceedances were found in 1 carp fillet composite sample. At Greeson an exceedance was found in 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample. At Pumice drain an exceedance was found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample. At Mayflower drain an exceedance was found in 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample. At Peach drain exceedances were found in 2 mosquitofish whole fish composites, and 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample. At Barbara Worth drain exceedances were found in 2 mosquitofish whole fish composites. At Warren Drain exceedances were found in 2 mosquitofish whole fish composites (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 1000 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Rice drain 3, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach Drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, and Warren drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, tilapia, flathead catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle, redbelly tilapia, and yellow bullhead were collected. Eight carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1985, 1986, 1988, (3)1990, and 1999. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989-90. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. One flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. One yellow bullhead fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Nineteen whole fish samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Twelve mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in 1985, 1989, (2)1990, (3)1991, 1995-96, and (3)2000. Seven sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, (2)2000. Exceedances were found in samples collected from 10/10/1985 through 11/08/2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial224392012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory action:Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, and New River Sediment TMDL. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S for agricultural uses., and concentrations of OC compounds in the IVDs have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of IVDs OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDLs and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). IVDs WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Thirty-nine of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and four of four fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and none of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition has been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005, and is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  The listing for DDT only applies to the Barbara Worth Drain, Peach Drain, and Rice Drain areas of the Imperial Valley drains.461652012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671431Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet44Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 4 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. Eleven composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial191242012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, and New River Sediment TMDL. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the IVDs have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of IVDs OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDLs and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). IVDs WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46181 is combined with LOE No. 5600 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Thirty six of 36 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and four of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition has been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005, and is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  The listing for dieldrin only applies to the Barbara Worth Drain and Fig Drain areas of the Imperial Valley drains.461682012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671434DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet44Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 4 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. Eleven composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial191242012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, and New River Sediment TMDL. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the IVDs have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of IVDs OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDLs and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). IVDs WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46181 is combined with LOE No. 5600 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Thirty six of 36 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and four of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition has been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005, and is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  The listing for dieldrin only applies to the Barbara Worth Drain and Fig Drain areas of the Imperial Valley drains.461812012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671435DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. Eleven composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial191242012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, and New River Sediment TMDL. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the IVDs have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of IVDs OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDLs and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). IVDs WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46181 is combined with LOE No. 5600 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Thirty six of 36 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and four of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition has been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005, and is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  The listing for dieldrin only applies to the Barbara Worth Drain and Fig Drain areas of the Imperial Valley drains.56002010State Reviewed DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal404Twenty-one fish fillet samples and nineteen whole fish samples were taken at 14 locations in Imperial Valley drains. The fish samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 1 fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish samples collected at 3 locations exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. At Rice drain 3 an exceedance was found in 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 10/10/1985. At Peach drain exceedances were found in 2 mosquitofish whole fish composite samples collected on 10/28/1995, and 9/17/1992. At Warren drain an exceedance was found in 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 10/26/1989 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Rice drain 3, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach Drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, and Warren drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, tilapia, flathead catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle, redbelly tilapia, and yellow bullhead were collected. Eight carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1985, 1986, 1988, (3)1990, and 1999. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989-90. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. One flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. One yellow bullhead fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Nineteen whole fish samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Twelve mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in 1985, 1989, (2)1990, (3)1991, 1995-96, and (3)2000. Seven sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, (2)2000. Exceedances were found in samples collected from 10/10/1985 through 10/28/1995. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial191242012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, and New River Sediment TMDL. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the IVDs have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of IVDs OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDLs and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). IVDs WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46181 is combined with LOE No. 5600 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Thirty six of 36 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and four of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition has been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005, and is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  The listing for dieldrin only applies to the Barbara Worth Drain and Fig Drain areas of the Imperial Valley drains.54402010State Reviewed DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal3636Twenty-one fish fillet samples and nineteen whole fish samples were taken at 14 locations in Imperial Valley drains. Four fish fillet sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 17 fish fillet samples and 19 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 17 fish fillet samples and 19 whole fish samples collected at 15 locations exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. At Rose drain exceedances were found in 1 carp fillet composite sample, and 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample. At Holtville Main drain exceedances were found in 2 channel catfish fillet composite samples, and 1 carp fillet composite sample. At Central drain exceedances were found in 1 carp fillet composite sample, 1 flathead catfish single fish fillet sample, and 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample. At South Central drain exceedances were found in 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample, 1 carp single fish fillet sample, 1 spiny soft shelled turtle fish composite sample, and 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample. At Rice drain 3 exceedances were found in 2 carp fillet composite samples. At Verde drain an exceedance was found in 1 carp single fish fillet sample. At Greeson exceedances were found in 1 carp fillet composite sample, 1 yellow bullhead fillet composite sample, 1 spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample, and 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample. At Fig drain exceedances were found in 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample, and 3 sailfin molly whole fish composite samples. At Pumice drain exceedances were found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample, and 1 carp fillet composite sample. At Mayflower drain an exceedance was found in 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample. At Orange drain an exceedance was found in 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite. At Peach drain exceedances were found in 2 mosquitofish whole fish composite samples, and 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample. At Tokay drain an exceedance was found in 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample. At Barbara Worth drain exceedances were found in 2 mosquitofish whole fish composite samples, and 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample. At Warren Drain exceedances were found in 2 mosquitofish whole fish composite samples (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 0.46 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Rice drain 3, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach Drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, and Warren drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, tilapia, flathead catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle, redbelly tilapia, and yellow bullhead were collected. Eight carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1985, 1986, 1988, (3)1990, and 1999. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989-90. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. One flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. One yellow bullhead fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Nineteen whole fish samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Twelve mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in 1985, 1989, (2)1990, (3)1991, 1995-96, and (3)2000. Seven sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, (2)2000. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 9/10/1985 through 12/05/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial191242012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, and New River Sediment TMDL. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the IVDs have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of IVDs OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDLs and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). IVDs WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46181 is combined with LOE No. 5600 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Thirty six of 36 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and four of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition has been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005, and is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  The listing for dieldrin only applies to the Barbara Worth Drain and Fig Drain areas of the Imperial Valley drains.51082010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial191242012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, and New River Sediment TMDL. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the IVDs have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of IVDs OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDLs and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). IVDs WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46181 is combined with LOE No. 5600 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Thirty six of 36 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and four of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition has been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005, and is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  The listing for dieldrin only applies to the Barbara Worth Drain and Fig Drain areas of the Imperial Valley drains.50602010State Reviewed Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved50Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, and 0.086 ug/l Endrin (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial194722012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. PCBs are one of the OC compounds, which were used in a wide variety of applications, including dielectric fluids in transformers and capacitors, heat transfer fluids, and lubricants.in the 1970s. However, PCBs were banned for all uses in 1979 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the IVDs have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of IVDs OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDLs and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). IVDs WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46243 is combined with LOE No. 5647 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Eight of 8 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and three of four fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue evaluation guideline. Two of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition has been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005, and is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  The listing for PCBs only applies to the Central Drain area of the Imperial Valley drains, from Meloland Road to the outlet into the Alamo River.48712010State Reviewed PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved22Six water samples were taken at three Imperial Valley Drains, 4 water sample results could not be used because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The two acceptable water quality samples were collected on 5/08/2002 and 5/09/2002, from W and Trifolium TD1 Imperial Valley Drains. These samples exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.00017 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains; Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002.The exceedences were found in samples collected from 5/08/2002 through 5/09/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial194722012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. PCBs are one of the OC compounds, which were used in a wide variety of applications, including dielectric fluids in transformers and capacitors, heat transfer fluids, and lubricants.in the 1970s. However, PCBs were banned for all uses in 1979 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the IVDs have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of IVDs OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDLs and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). IVDs WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46243 is combined with LOE No. 5647 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Eight of 8 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and three of four fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue evaluation guideline. Two of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition has been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005, and is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  The listing for PCBs only applies to the Central Drain area of the Imperial Valley drains, from Meloland Road to the outlet into the Alamo River.462302012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671448PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet43Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. Eleven composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Composites were averaged for species collected at the same time and location. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for Tilapia spp. and flathead catfish. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for polychlorinated biphenyls in fish tissue is 2.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial194722012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. PCBs are one of the OC compounds, which were used in a wide variety of applications, including dielectric fluids in transformers and capacitors, heat transfer fluids, and lubricants.in the 1970s. However, PCBs were banned for all uses in 1979 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the IVDs have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of IVDs OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDLs and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). IVDs WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46243 is combined with LOE No. 5647 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Eight of 8 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and three of four fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue evaluation guideline. Two of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition has been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005, and is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  The listing for PCBs only applies to the Central Drain area of the Imperial Valley drains, from Meloland Road to the outlet into the Alamo River.56472010State Reviewed PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal400Twenty-one fish fillet samples and nineteen whole fish samples were taken at 14 locations in imperial valley drains. The fish samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 500 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Rice drain 3, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach Drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, and Warren drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, tilapia, flathead catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle, redbelly tilapia, and yellow bullhead were collected. Eight carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1985, 1986, 1988, (3)1990, and 1999. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989-90. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. One flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. One yellow bullhead fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Nineteen whole fish samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Twelve mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in 1985, 1989, (2)1990, (3)1991, 1995-96, and (3)2000. Seven sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, (2)2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial194722012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. PCBs are one of the OC compounds, which were used in a wide variety of applications, including dielectric fluids in transformers and capacitors, heat transfer fluids, and lubricants.in the 1970s. However, PCBs were banned for all uses in 1979 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the IVDs have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of IVDs OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDLs and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). IVDs WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46243 is combined with LOE No. 5647 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Eight of 8 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and three of four fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue evaluation guideline. Two of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition has been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005, and is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  The listing for PCBs only applies to the Central Drain area of the Imperial Valley drains, from Meloland Road to the outlet into the Alamo River.54412010State Reviewed PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal88Twenty-one fish fillet samples and nineteen whole fish samples were taken at 14 locations in Imperial Valley drains. Eighteen fish fillet and 14 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 3 fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 12/1999 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 3 fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples collected at 5 locations exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. At Holtville Main drain an exceedance was found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 12/05/1999. At Central drain exceedances were found in 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 12/05/1999, and 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 11/08/2000. At South Central drain exceedances were found in 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample collected on 12/05/1999, and 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 11/08/2000. At Greeson an exceedance was found in 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample collected on 11/07/2000. At Barbara Worth drain exceedances were found in 2 mosquitofish whole fish composite samples collected on (2)11/08/2000 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 3.6 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Rice drain 3, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach Drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, and Warren drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, tilapia, flathead catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle, redbelly tilapia, and yellow bullhead were collected. Eight carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1985, 1986, 1988, (3)1990, and 1999. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989-90. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. One flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. One yellow bullhead fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Nineteen whole fish samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Twelve mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in 1985, 1989, (2)1990, (3)1991, 1995-96, and (3)2000. Seven sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, (2)2000. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 12/05/1999 through 11/08/2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial194722012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. PCBs are one of the OC compounds, which were used in a wide variety of applications, including dielectric fluids in transformers and capacitors, heat transfer fluids, and lubricants.in the 1970s. However, PCBs were banned for all uses in 1979 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the IVDs have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of IVDs OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDLs and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). IVDs WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46243 is combined with LOE No. 5647 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Eight of 8 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and three of four fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue evaluation guideline. Two of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition has been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005, and is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  The listing for PCBs only applies to the Central Drain area of the Imperial Valley drains, from Meloland Road to the outlet into the Alamo River.51082010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial194722012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. PCBs are one of the OC compounds, which were used in a wide variety of applications, including dielectric fluids in transformers and capacitors, heat transfer fluids, and lubricants.in the 1970s. However, PCBs were banned for all uses in 1979 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the IVDs have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of IVDs OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDLs and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). IVDs WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46243 is combined with LOE No. 5647 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Eight of 8 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and three of four fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue evaluation guideline. Two of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition has been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005, and is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  The listing for PCBs only applies to the Central Drain area of the Imperial Valley drains, from Meloland Road to the outlet into the Alamo River.462432012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671449PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. Eleven composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Composites were averaged for species collected at the same time and location. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total PCB concentration of 500 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial191232012ToxapheneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, and New River Sediment TMDL. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Toxaphene is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used in the 1970s and early 1980s. However, Toxaphene was banned for all uses in 1990 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the IVDs have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of IVDs OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDLs and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). IVDs WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46246 is combined with LOE No. 5658 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-three of 23 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and 21 of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition has been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005, and is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for toxaphene only applies to the Barbara Worth Drain, Peach Drain, and Rice Drain of the Imperial Valley drains.462462012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671452ToxapheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. Eleven composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Toxaphene concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial191232012ToxapheneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, and New River Sediment TMDL. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Toxaphene is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used in the 1970s and early 1980s. However, Toxaphene was banned for all uses in 1990 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the IVDs have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of IVDs OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDLs and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). IVDs WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46246 is combined with LOE No. 5658 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-three of 23 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and 21 of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition has been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005, and is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for toxaphene only applies to the Barbara Worth Drain, Peach Drain, and Rice Drain of the Imperial Valley drains.462452012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671451ToxapheneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. Eleven composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Eleven samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for toxaphene in fish tissue is 4.3 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial191232012ToxapheneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, and New River Sediment TMDL. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Toxaphene is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used in the 1970s and early 1980s. However, Toxaphene was banned for all uses in 1990 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the IVDs have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of IVDs OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDLs and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). IVDs WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46246 is combined with LOE No. 5658 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-three of 23 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and 21 of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition has been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005, and is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for toxaphene only applies to the Barbara Worth Drain, Peach Drain, and Rice Drain of the Imperial Valley drains.56582010State Reviewed ToxapheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal4021Twenty-one fish fillet samples and nineteen whole fish samples were taken at 14 locations in Imperial Valley drains. The fish samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 12 fish fillet samples and 9 whole fish samples collected at 12 locations exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. At Rose drain an exceedance was found in 1 carp fillet composite sample. At Holtville Main drain exceedances were found in 2 channel catfish fillet composite samples. At Central drain an exceedance was found in 1 carp fillet composite sample. At South Central drain exceedances were found in 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample, 1 carp single fish fillet sample, and 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite. At Rice drain 3 exceedances were found in 2 carp fillet composite samples. At Verde drain an exceedance was found in 1 carp single fish fillet. At Greeson exceedances were found in 1 carp fillet composite sample, and 1 yellow bullhead fillet composite sample. At Pumice drain exceedances were found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample. At Mayflower drain an exceedence was found in 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample. At Orange drain an exceedance was found in 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite. At Peach drain exceedances were found in 2 mosquitofish whole fish composite samples, and 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample. At Barbara Worth drain exceedances were found in 2 mosquitofish whole fish composite samples, and 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Rice drain 3, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach Drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, and Warren drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, tilapia, flathead catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle, redbelly tilapia, and yellow bullhead were collected. Eight carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1985, 1986, 1988, (3)1990, and 1999. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989-90. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. One flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. One yellow bullhead fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Nineteen whole fish samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Twelve mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in 1985, 1989, (2)1990, (3)1991, 1995-96, and (3)2000. Seven sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, (2)2000. Exceedances were found in samples collected from 10/10/1985 through 11/08/2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial191232012ToxapheneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, and New River Sediment TMDL. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Toxaphene is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used in the 1970s and early 1980s. However, Toxaphene was banned for all uses in 1990 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the IVDs have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of IVDs OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDLs and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). IVDs WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46246 is combined with LOE No. 5658 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-three of 23 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and 21 of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition has been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005, and is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for toxaphene only applies to the Barbara Worth Drain, Peach Drain, and Rice Drain of the Imperial Valley drains.54422010State Reviewed ToxapheneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal2323Twenty-one fish fillet samples and nineteen whole fish samples were taken at 14 locations in Imperial Valley drains. Nine fish fillet and eight whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentrations. The 12 fish fillet samples and 11 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 12/1922 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 12 fish fillet samples and 11 whole fish samples collected at 12 locations exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. At Rose drain an exceedance was found in 1 carp fillet composite sample. At Holtville Main drain exceedances were found in 2 channel catfish fillet composite samples. At Central drain exceedances were found in 1 carp fillet composite sample, and 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample. At South Central drain exceedances were found in 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample, 1 carp single fish fillet sample, and 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample. At Rice drain 3 exceedances were found in 2 carp fillet composite samples. At Verde drain an exceedance was found in 1 carp single fish fillet sample. At Greeson drain exceedances were found in 1 carp fillet composite sample, 1 yellow bullhead fillet composite sample, and 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample. At Pumice drain an exceedance was found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample. At Mayflower drain an exceedance was found in 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample. At Orange drain an exceedance was found in 1 mosquitofish whole fish composite sample. At Peach drain exceedances were found in 2 mosquitofish whole fish composite samples, and 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample. At Barbara Worth drain exceedances were found in 2 mosquitofish whole fish composite samples, and 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 6.1 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 20008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Rice drain 3, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach Drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, and Warren drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, tilapia, flathead catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle, redbelly tilapia, and yellow bullhead were collected. Eight carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1985, 1986, 1988, (3)1990, and 1999. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989-90. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. One flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. One yellow bullhead fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Nineteen whole fish samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Twelve mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in 1985, 1989, (2)1990, (3)1991, 1995-96, and (3)2000. Seven sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, (2)2000. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 10/10/1985 through 12/05/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial191232012ToxapheneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: Alamo River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), IVDs Sediment TMDL and Prohibition, and New River Sediment TMDL. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Toxaphene is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used in the 1970s and early 1980s. However, Toxaphene was banned for all uses in 1990 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the IVDs have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of IVDs OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDLs and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). IVDs WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the Alamo River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46246 is combined with LOE No. 5658 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-three of 23 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and 21 of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition has been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005, and is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.  This listing for toxaphene only applies to the Barbara Worth Drain, Peach Drain, and Rice Drain of the Imperial Valley drains.29582006State Reviewed ToxapheneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal55Five out of 5 samples exceeded the NAS guideline. A total of 5 whole fish composite samples of mosquitofish and sailfin molly were collected. Two mosquitofish samples were collected in 2000 and 3 sailfin molly samples were collected in 1992 and 2001-02. The guideline was exceeded in all samples (TSMP, 2002).Two out of 2 samples exceeded the OEHHA guideline. One filet composite sample (1999) and 1 individual filet sample (2002) of carp were collected. Both samples were in exceedance. Three out of 3 samples exceeded the NAS guideline. A total of 3 whole fish composite samples of sailfin molly and mosquitofish were collected. One sailfin molly sample was collected in 1992 and 2 mosquitofish samples were collected in 1995-96. The guideline was exceeded in all samples.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedColorado River Basin RWQCB Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)NAS Guideline (whole fish) 100 ng/g and OEHHA Screening Value 30 ng/g.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)The Barbara Worth Drain, Peach Drain, and Rice Drain only. For the 5 samples: 1 station located off Anderhold Road south of Highway S80 where drain comes alongside road. This information only applies to the Barbara Worth Drain area of the Imperial Valley Drains. For the 2 samples: 1 station located downstream of Meloland Road. This information only applies to the Central Drain area of the Imperial Valley Drains. For the 3 samples: One station located at highway 115 crossing. This information only applies to the Peach Drain area of the Imperial Valley Drains.Samples were collected on 12-5-1999, 10/22/2002, in 1992, 1995-1996 and 2000-2002. Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1992-93 Data Report.Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 1996-2000. Department of Fish and Game.Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 2001-2002. Department of Fish and Game. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183252012ChlordaneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Chlordane is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1950s to the early 1980s. However, Chlordane was banned for all uses in 1988 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2938 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2938 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. LOE Nos. 46272 and 5577 are combined for a use rating determination. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-eight of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and five of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   29382006State ReviewedNJK: Use support rating could be insufficient information due to the detection limit being higher than the chronic maximum.ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone40Data were collected by the RWQCB at four locations on the New River in 2003. Of the 4 samples, all samples were non-detects with a detection limit of 0.025 ppb. Therefore, there were no exceedances (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCTR: freshwater acute maximum = 2.4 ppb and CTR: freshwater chronic maximum = 0.0043 ppb as a 4-day average.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Data were collected at four locations on the New River, from the international boundary to the outlet to the Salton Sea.Samples were collected on 4/17/2003. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183252012ChlordaneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Chlordane is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1950s to the early 1980s. However, Chlordane was banned for all uses in 1988 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2938 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2938 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. LOE Nos. 46272 and 5577 are combined for a use rating determination. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-eight of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and five of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   50292010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183252012ChlordaneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Chlordane is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1950s to the early 1980s. However, Chlordane was banned for all uses in 1988 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2938 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2938 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. LOE Nos. 46272 and 5577 are combined for a use rating determination. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-eight of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and five of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   53872010State Reviewed ChlordaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal4328Forty-one fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 2 locations in the river. Three fish fillet samples could not be used in this assessment because the constituent was not analyzed in the samples. The 38 fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Of these total samples, 26 fish fillet samples and 2 whole fish samples collected at two locations exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. At the Westmorland location the exceedances were found in; 9 channel catfish fillet composite samples collected on 5/09/1980, 5/24/1981, (2)4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 10/10/1985, 9/03/1987, 10/27/1995, and 11/20/1997; 4 channel catfish single fish fillet samples collected on 11/18/1988, 8/03/1990, 9/20/1992, and 9/29/1993; 6 Carp fillet composite samples collected on 5/24/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 5/24/1984, 10/09/1985, and 10/15/1986; 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 12/09/1999. At the International Boundary location exceedances were found in; 4 carp fillet composite samples collected on 7/31/1990, 12/18/1991, 6/16/1993, and 11/02/1994; 2 carp single fish fillet samples collected on 7/20/1989, and 12/10/1997; 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 10/01/1985, and; 1 tilapia single whole fish sample collected on 5/17/1984 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 5.6 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the following New River locations: near the International Boundary, and near Westmorland, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Forty-one fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp, flathead catfish, tilapia, spiny soft shelled turtle, and yellow bullhead were collected. Fifteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1979, (4)1980, 1981, (2)1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1991, 1995 and 1997-98. Five channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1988, 1990, 1992-93. Ten carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-86, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994. Five carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1989, 1994, 1997, and 1999. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1996. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1991-92. One spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. Five whole fish samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia and sailfin molly & mosquitofish were collected. Three red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1980. One tilapia single whole fish sample was collected in the year 1984. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/09/1980 through 12/10/1997. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183252012ChlordaneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Chlordane is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1950s to the early 1980s. However, Chlordane was banned for all uses in 1988 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2938 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2938 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. LOE Nos. 46272 and 5577 are combined for a use rating determination. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-eight of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and five of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   55772010State Reviewed ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal435Forty-one fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 2 locations in the river. Three fish fillet samples could not be used in this assessment because the constituent was not analyzed in the samples. The 38 fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Of these total samples, 5 fish fillet samples collected at two locations exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. At the Westmorland location an exceedance was found in 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample collected on 8/03/1990. At the International Boundary location exceedances were found in 4 carp fillet composite samples collected on 7/31/1990, 12/18/1991, 6/16/1993, and 11/02/1994 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following New River locations: near the International Boundary, and near Westmorland, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Forty-one fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp, flathead catfish, tilapia, spiny soft shelled turtle, and yellow bullhead were collected. Fifteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1979, (4)1980, 1981, (2)1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1991, 1995 and 1997-98. Five channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1988, 1990, 1992-93. Ten carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-86, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994. Five carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1989, 1994, 1997, and 1999. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1996. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1991-92. One spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. Five whole fish samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia and sailfin molly & mosquitofish were collected. Three red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1980. One tilapia single whole fish sample was collected in the year 1984. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Exceedances were found in samples collected from 7/31/1990 through 11/02/1994. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183252012ChlordaneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Chlordane is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1950s to the early 1980s. However, Chlordane was banned for all uses in 1988 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2938 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2938 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. LOE Nos. 46272 and 5577 are combined for a use rating determination. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-eight of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and five of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   323742012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21784ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one sample collected had Trans-nonachlor (0.364 ng/g) and Trans-Chlordane (0.789 ng/g) in detectable amounts, and the total is 1.153 ng/g or ug/kg which did not exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Chlordane (Sum of trans-Chlordane, cis-Chlordane, cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor, and Oxychlordane) in freshwater sediments is 17.6 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: New River Outlet (723NROTWM).One sample was collected on 10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183252012ChlordaneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Chlordane is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1950s to the early 1980s. However, Chlordane was banned for all uses in 1988 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2938 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2938 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. LOE Nos. 46272 and 5577 are combined for a use rating determination. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-eight of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and five of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   462722012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671457ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (3 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Channel Catfish. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 11/5/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183252012ChlordaneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Chlordane is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1950s to the early 1980s. However, Chlordane was banned for all uses in 1988 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2938 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2938 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. LOE Nos. 46272 and 5577 are combined for a use rating determination. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-eight of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and five of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   328502012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21819ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Zero of 8 samples collected for Chlordane (Sum of trans-Chlordane, cis-Chlordane, cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor, and Oxychlordane) exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Chlordane in freshwater sediments is 17.6 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY, New River Outlet - 723NROTWM.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183252012ChlordaneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Chlordane is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1950s to the early 1980s. However, Chlordane was banned for all uses in 1988 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2938 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2938 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. LOE Nos. 46272 and 5577 are combined for a use rating determination. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-eight of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and five of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   332262012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23457ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120None of the 12 samples exceeded the criterion continuous concentration for chlordane (total). Total chlordane is assessed as the sum of cis-chlordane, trans-chlordane, cis-nonachlor, trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe chlordane criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0043 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 723NRBDRY New River at Boundary and 723NROTWM New River OutletSamples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183252012ChlordaneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Chlordane is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1950s to the early 1980s. However, Chlordane was banned for all uses in 1988 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2938 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2938 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. LOE Nos. 46272 and 5577 are combined for a use rating determination. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-eight of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and five of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   336512012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 24389ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Zer of 1 sample collected did not exceed the criteria for chlordane concentration (Sum of trans-Chlordane, cis-Chlordane, cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor, and Oxychlordane).1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Chlordane in freshwater sediments is 17.6 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station 723NROTWM (New River Outlet).One sample was collected on 10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183252012ChlordaneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Chlordane is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1950s to the early 1980s. However, Chlordane was banned for all uses in 1988 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2938 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2938 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. LOE Nos. 46272 and 5577 are combined for a use rating determination. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-eight of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and five of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   462612012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671456ChlordaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (3 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Channel Catfish. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 11/5/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183252012ChlordaneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Chlordane is one of the OC compounds, which was used for mainly agricultural uses during 1950s to the early 1980s. However, Chlordane was banned for all uses in 1988 in the U.S.Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2938 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2938 will not be used in the Final Use Rating. LOE Nos. 46272 and 5577 are combined for a use rating determination. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-eight of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and five of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   324172012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21797ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal20The two samples collected were non-detect and did not exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Continuous Concentration for the protection of the freshwater aquatic life for chlordane is 0.0043 ug/L.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data were collected at the following station: Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0 (723NRMSBD).The samples were collected on 8/2/2006 and 7/12/2006. The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial192652012ChlorpyrifosSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Chlorpyrifos in the New River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Chlorpyrifos into New River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2954 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No 4863. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Six of water samples and three of sediment samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 15 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, and three of nine sediment samples exceed the median lethal concentration (LC50). These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   323652012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21692ChlorpyrifosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone00In all 6 samples, chlorpyrifos was not measure above the detection limit, however, the detection limit is higher than the evaluation guideline so it cannot be determined if the samples exceeded or not.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Department of Fish and Game guideline of 0.014 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005).Site 723NRBDRY (New River at Boundary).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial192652012ChlorpyrifosSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Chlorpyrifos in the New River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Chlorpyrifos into New River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2954 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No 4863. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Six of water samples and three of sediment samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 15 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, and three of nine sediment samples exceed the median lethal concentration (LC50). These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   352072012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167679ChlorpyrifosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twelve samples total were collected. One sample was detected at a level above the evaluation guideline resulting in 1 exceedance. Eleven samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005).Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial192652012ChlorpyrifosSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Chlorpyrifos in the New River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Chlorpyrifos into New River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2954 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No 4863. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Six of water samples and three of sediment samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 15 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, and three of nine sediment samples exceed the median lethal concentration (LC50). These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   354242012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168195ChlorpyrifosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal83Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for chlorpyrifos is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.77 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg and Weston, 2007).1.Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial192652012ChlorpyrifosSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Chlorpyrifos in the New River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Chlorpyrifos into New River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2954 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No 4863. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Six of water samples and three of sediment samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 15 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, and three of nine sediment samples exceed the median lethal concentration (LC50). These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   359172012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168315ChlorpyrifosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for chlorpyrifos is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.77 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg and Weston, 2007).1.Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial192652012ChlorpyrifosSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Chlorpyrifos in the New River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Chlorpyrifos into New River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2954 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No 4863. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Six of water samples and three of sediment samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 15 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, and three of nine sediment samples exceed the median lethal concentration (LC50). These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   462732012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671458ChlorpyrifosCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. One composite (3 fish per composite) were generated from one species: channel catfish.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for chlorpyrifos in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 11/5/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial192652012ChlorpyrifosSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Chlorpyrifos in the New River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Chlorpyrifos into New River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2954 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No 4863. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Six of water samples and three of sediment samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 15 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, and three of nine sediment samples exceed the median lethal concentration (LC50). These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   29542006State Reviewed ChlorpyrifosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal92Numeric data generated from 4 water samples from SWAMP and 5 water samples taken by USGS. Two of nine samples exceeded the evaluation guideline (SWAMP, 2004; LeBlanc, 2004).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Guideline from the Department of Fish and Game of 0.014 ug/L used (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Five stations were sampled. All were situated along the New River from the international boundary with Mexico to the outlet (mouth) of New River in the Salton Sea. Exceedances were observed at the Evans Hewes Highway and the Rice Drain stations.Four samples were taken during the spring (May) and the fall (October) of 2002. No exceedances were observed. Of the five samples collected in April 2003, two exceeded the evaluation guideline.The New River flows from Mexico through the Imperial Valley in the Salton Sea. Most of the water flowing through it comes from agricultural return flows.SWAMP QAPP. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial192652012ChlorpyrifosSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Chlorpyrifos in the New River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Chlorpyrifos into New River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2954 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No 4863. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Six of water samples and three of sediment samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 15 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, and three of nine sediment samples exceed the median lethal concentration (LC50). These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   48632010State Reviewed ChlorpyrifosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved31Seventeen water samples were taken at three locations on the river. Fourteen water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The three acceptible water quality samples were collected on 4/15/2003, and 10/05/2004 from 3 locations along the New River. One sample from the outlet to the Salton Sea location exceeded the CDFG Hazardous Assessment Criteria. The exceedence was found a the sample collected on 10/05/2004 (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.02 ug/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and GameSamples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, usually in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea site. Two additional samples were collected from these two locations in 4/2003. The Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA location was sampled once in 4/2003. The exceedence was found in a sample collected on 10/05/2004. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial192652012ChlorpyrifosSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Chlorpyrifos in the New River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Chlorpyrifos into New River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2954 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No 4863. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Six of water samples and three of sediment samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 15 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, and three of nine sediment samples exceed the median lethal concentration (LC50). These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   51822010State Reviewed ChlorpyrifosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved125Twelve water quality samples were taken at 4 locations along the river, generally collected from 9/13/2006 through 4/18/2007. Of these total samples , 5 exceeded the CDFG Hazardous Assessment Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 10/14/2006, 10/15/2006, 10/16/2006, 2/14/2007, and 3/13/2007 from all four locations (Orlando et al, 2008).1."Pesticides in Water and Suspended Sediment of the Alamo and New Rivers, Imperial Valley/Salton Sea Basin, California, 2006-07". U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Final Report prepared in cooperation with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), delivered to the CRBRWQCB. Palm Desert, CA.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.02 ug/l (1 hr. ave.) for freshwater aquatic life use protection (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and GameSamples were collected at the following New River locations: at the Outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA, downstream of Drop 4 near Brawley, CA, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, and at the International Boundary with Mexico.Twelve samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 9/13/2006 through 4/18/2007. Samples were collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea monthly from 9/2006 through 11/2006 and 2/2007 through 4/2007. The three other locations were sampled only twice, once in 10/2006 and another time in 3/2007. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 10/14/2006 through 3/13/2007. Investigators used USGS methods for sample collection and analysis. Lab analysis was done by the USGS Laboratories in Sacramento, CA. All methods were approved by State Board QA officer (USGS, 2007b).1.Quality Assurance Project Plan, Imperial Valley Pesticides TMDL Assessment Studies. Water Science Center. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial192652012ChlorpyrifosSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Chlorpyrifos in the New River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Chlorpyrifos into New River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2954 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No 4863. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Six of water samples and three of sediment samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 15 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, and three of nine sediment samples exceed the median lethal concentration (LC50). These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   54872010State Reviewed ChlorpyrifosCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal420Forty-one fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 2 locations in the river. Four fish fillet samples could not be used in this assessment because the constituent was not analyzed in the sample. The 37 fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 10000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following New River locations: near the International Boundary, and near Westmorland, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Forty-one fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp, flathead catfish, tilapia, spiny soft shelled turtle, and yellow bullhead were collected. Fifteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1979, (4)1980, 1981, (2)1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1991, 1995 and 1997-98. Five channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1988, 1990, 1992-93. Ten carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-86, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994. Five carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1989, 1994, 1997, and 1999. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1996. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1991-92. One spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. Five whole fish samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia and sailfin molly & mosquitofish were collected. Three red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1980. One tilapia single whole fish sample was collected in the year 1984. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial243462012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2935 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. According to 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy, whenever the sample results are below the quantitation limit, and the quantitation limit is above the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the results shall not be used in the analysis. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2935 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.The results of fish tissue Line of Evidence No. 2936 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5388. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Forty-two of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and 12 of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. Fifty-four of 54 water samples exceed the CTR criteria, and the DDT degradates p,pÂ’-DDD and p,pÂ’-DDE were found in water samples in concentrations that exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   324132012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21793DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one sample collected was 4.24 ug/kg and did not exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDD in freshwater sediments is 28.0 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: New River Outlet (723NROTWM).One sample was collected on 10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial243462012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2935 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. According to 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy, whenever the sample results are below the quantitation limit, and the quantitation limit is above the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the results shall not be used in the analysis. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2935 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.The results of fish tissue Line of Evidence No. 2936 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5388. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Forty-two of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and 12 of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. Fifty-four of 54 water samples exceed the CTR criteria, and the DDT degradates p,pÂ’-DDD and p,pÂ’-DDE were found in water samples in concentrations that exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   329132012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21838DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Zero of 8 samples collected for Sum DDD exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDD (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 28.0 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY, New River Outlet - 723NROTWM.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial243462012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2935 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. According to 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy, whenever the sample results are below the quantitation limit, and the quantitation limit is above the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the results shall not be used in the analysis. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2935 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.The results of fish tissue Line of Evidence No. 2936 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5388. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Forty-two of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and 12 of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. Fifty-four of 54 water samples exceed the CTR criteria, and the DDT degradates p,pÂ’-DDD and p,pÂ’-DDE were found in water samples in concentrations that exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   53882010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal4542Forty-one fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 2 locations in the river. One fish fillet samples could not be used in this assessment because the constituent was not analyzed in the sample. The 40 fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Of these total samples, 40 fish fillet samples and 2 whole fish samples collected at two locations exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. At the Westmorland location the exceedances were found in; 14 channel catfish fillet composite samples collected on 3/13/1979, (3)5/09/1980, 5/24/1981, (2)4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 10/10/1985, 9/03/1987, 8/15/1991, 10/27/1995, 11/20/1997, and 11/11/1998; 5 channel catfish single fish fillet samples collected on 6/22/1978, 11/18/1988, 8/03/1990, 9/20/1992, and 9/29/1993; 6 carp fillet composite samples collected on 5/24/1981, 4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 5/24/1984, 10/09/1985, and 10/15/1986; 3 carp single fish fillet samples collected on 6/22/1978, 10/27/1994, and 12/09/1999; 1 flathead catfish single fish fillet sample collected on 10/29/1989; 1 tilapia fish fillet composite sample collected on 11/01/1996, and; 2 spiny soft shelled turtles collected on 8/15/1991, and 9/20/1992. At the International Boundary location exceedances were found in; 4 carp fillet composite samples collected on 7/31/1990, 12/18/1991, 6/16/1993, and 11/02/1994; 2 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 7/20/1989, and 12/10/1997; 1 yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample collected on 7/20/1989; 1 spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet sample collected on 5/12/1987; 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 10/01/1985, and; 1 tilapia single whole fish sample collected on 5/17/1984 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 21 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the following New River locations: near the International Boundary, and near Westmorland, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Forty-one fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp, flathead catfish, tilapia, spiny soft shelled turtle, and yellow bullhead were collected. Fifteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1979, (4)1980, 1981, (2)1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1991, 1995 and 1997-98. Five channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1988, 1990, 1992-93. Ten carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-86, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994. Five carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1989, 1994, 1997, and 1999. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1996. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1991-92. One spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. Five whole fish samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia and sailfin molly & mosquitofish were collected. Three red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1980. One tilapia single whole fish sample was collected in the year 1984. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 6/22/1978 through 12/09/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial243462012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2935 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. According to 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy, whenever the sample results are below the quantitation limit, and the quantitation limit is above the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the results shall not be used in the analysis. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2935 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.The results of fish tissue Line of Evidence No. 2936 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5388. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Forty-two of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and 12 of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. Fifty-four of 54 water samples exceed the CTR criteria, and the DDT degradates p,pÂ’-DDD and p,pÂ’-DDE were found in water samples in concentrations that exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   52412010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal540Eighty-one samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Twenty-seven water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 54 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 9/1992. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.1 ug/l p,p'-DDT for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following New River locations: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10255502 at Drop 4 near Brawley, Ca.Eighty-one samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Four samples were collected in 1969, 76 samples were collected from 1970-1979, no samples were collected from 1980-1989, 1 in 1990-1999. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial243462012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2935 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. According to 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy, whenever the sample results are below the quantitation limit, and the quantitation limit is above the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the results shall not be used in the analysis. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2935 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.The results of fish tissue Line of Evidence No. 2936 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5388. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Forty-two of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and 12 of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. Fifty-four of 54 water samples exceed the CTR criteria, and the DDT degradates p,pÂ’-DDD and p,pÂ’-DDE were found in water samples in concentrations that exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   52002010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal5454Eighty-one water samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Twenty-seven water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 54 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Of these total samples, 54 exceeded the CTR Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 8/13/1969 through 5/30/1979 at 2 locations (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 0.00059 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following New River locations: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca, and USGS Station No.10255502 located at Drop 4 near Brawley, Ca.Samples were generally collected from 8/69 through 5/79. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 8/13/1969 through 5/30/1979. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial243462012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2935 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. According to 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy, whenever the sample results are below the quantitation limit, and the quantitation limit is above the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the results shall not be used in the analysis. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2935 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.The results of fish tissue Line of Evidence No. 2936 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5388. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Forty-two of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and 12 of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. Fifty-four of 54 water samples exceed the CTR criteria, and the DDT degradates p,pÂ’-DDD and p,pÂ’-DDE were found in water samples in concentrations that exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   51982010State Reviewed p,p'-DDECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal5656Eighty-one water samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Twenty-five water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 56 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Of these total samples, 56 exceeded the CTR Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 8/13/1969 through 4/01/1992 at 2 locations (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 0.00059 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following New River locations: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca, and USGS Station No.10255502 located at Drop 4 near Brawley, Ca.Eighty-one samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Four samples were collected in 1969, 76 samples were collected from 1970-1979, no samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 1 sample was collected from 1990-1999. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 8/13/1969 through 4/02/1992. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial243462012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2935 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. According to 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy, whenever the sample results are below the quantitation limit, and the quantitation limit is above the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the results shall not be used in the analysis. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2935 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.The results of fish tissue Line of Evidence No. 2936 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5388. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Forty-two of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and 12 of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. Fifty-four of 54 water samples exceed the CTR criteria, and the DDT degradates p,pÂ’-DDD and p,pÂ’-DDE were found in water samples in concentrations that exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   51962010State Reviewed p,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal6767Eighty-one water samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Fourteen water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 67 acceptable water quality sample were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Of these total samples, 67 exceeded the CTR Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 8/13/1969 through 4/02/1992 at 2 locations (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 0.00084 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following New River locations: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca, and USGS Station No.10255502 located at Drop 4 near Brawley, Ca.Eighty-one samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Four samples were collected in 1969, 76 samples were collected from 1970-1979, 0 samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 1 sample was collected from 1990-1999. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 8/13/1969 through 4/02/1992. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial243462012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2935 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. According to 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy, whenever the sample results are below the quantitation limit, and the quantitation limit is above the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the results shall not be used in the analysis. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2935 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.The results of fish tissue Line of Evidence No. 2936 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5388. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Forty-two of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and 12 of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. Fifty-four of 54 water samples exceed the CTR criteria, and the DDT degradates p,pÂ’-DDD and p,pÂ’-DDE were found in water samples in concentrations that exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   51842010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Twelve water quality samples were taken at 4 locations along the river, generally collected from 9/13/2006 through 4/18/2007. Of these total samples , none exceeded the CTR Criteria (Orlando et al, 2008).1."Pesticides in Water and Suspended Sediment of the Alamo and New Rivers, Imperial Valley/Salton Sea Basin, California, 2006-07". U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Final Report prepared in cooperation with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), delivered to the CRBRWQCB. Palm Desert, CA.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.1 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following New River locations: at the Outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA, downstream of Drop 4 near Brawley, CA, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, and at the International Boundary with Mexico.Twelve samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 9/13/2006 through 4/18/2007. Samples were collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea monthly from 9/06 through 11/06 and 2/07 through 4/07. The three other locations were sampled only twice, once in 10/2006 and another time in 3/2007. Investigators used USGS methods for sample collection and analysis. Lab analysis was done by the USGS Laboratories in Sacramento, CA. All methods were approved by State Board QA officer (USGS, 2007b).1.Quality Assurance Project Plan, Imperial Valley Pesticides TMDL Assessment Studies. Water Science Center. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial243462012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2935 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. According to 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy, whenever the sample results are below the quantitation limit, and the quantitation limit is above the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the results shall not be used in the analysis. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2935 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.The results of fish tissue Line of Evidence No. 2936 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5388. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Forty-two of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and 12 of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. Fifty-four of 54 water samples exceed the CTR criteria, and the DDT degradates p,pÂ’-DDD and p,pÂ’-DDE were found in water samples in concentrations that exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   50242010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved160Sixteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 3 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.1 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Sixteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the international Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Two extra samples were collect in April 2003 from these two locations. The Even Hewes location was sampled in April 2003 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial243462012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2935 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. According to 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy, whenever the sample results are below the quantitation limit, and the quantitation limit is above the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the results shall not be used in the analysis. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2935 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.The results of fish tissue Line of Evidence No. 2936 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5388. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Forty-two of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and 12 of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. Fifty-four of 54 water samples exceed the CTR criteria, and the DDT degradates p,pÂ’-DDD and p,pÂ’-DDE were found in water samples in concentrations that exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   48582010State Reviewed p,p'-DDECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved33Seventeen water samples were taken at three locations on the river. Fourteen water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The three acceptable water samples were collected on 5/06/2002, 10/02/2002, and 5/04/2004 at 1 location along the New River, near the outlet to the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, 3 exceeded the CTR Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 5/06/2002, 10/02/2002, and 5/04/2004. (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.00059 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, usually in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Two additional samples were collected in 4/2003 from these two locations. The location at Even Hewes Highway overpass was sampled once in 4/2003. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 5/06/2002 through 5/04/2004. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial243462012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2935 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. According to 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy, whenever the sample results are below the quantitation limit, and the quantitation limit is above the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the results shall not be used in the analysis. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2935 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.The results of fish tissue Line of Evidence No. 2936 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5388. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Forty-two of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and 12 of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. Fifty-four of 54 water samples exceed the CTR criteria, and the DDT degradates p,pÂ’-DDD and p,pÂ’-DDE were found in water samples in concentrations that exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   29362006State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal1311Eleven out of 13 samples exceeded. A total of 7 filet composite and individual samples of channel catfish, 5 filet composite and individual samples of carp, and one filet composite of tilapia were collected. Channel catfish were collected from 1992-99 and 2001-02. Carp were collected 1993-4, 1997, and 1999. Tilapia were collected in 1996. The guideline was exceeded in all samples except tilapia and a 1997 individual carp sample. This addresses DDT and related pollutants (TSMP, 2002).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedColorado River Basin RWQCB Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be presenting concentration that adversely affect beneficial uses.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)100 ng/g (OEHHA Screening Value; Brodberg, 1999).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Two stations, one station was located at the gauging station about one mile downstream of the Lack Road Bridge near Westmorland and the second station was located near the international boundary.Samples were collected annually 1992-99 and 2001-02. Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1992-93 and 1994-95 Data Reports.Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 1996-2000. Department of Fish and Game.Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 2001-2002. Department of Fish and Game. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial243462012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2935 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. According to 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy, whenever the sample results are below the quantitation limit, and the quantitation limit is above the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the results shall not be used in the analysis. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2935 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.The results of fish tissue Line of Evidence No. 2936 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5388. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Forty-two of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and 12 of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. Fifty-four of 54 water samples exceed the CTR criteria, and the DDT degradates p,pÂ’-DDD and p,pÂ’-DDE were found in water samples in concentrations that exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   29352006State ReviewedNJK: 305b Insufficient information- detection limit is above criterion for chronic maximum.DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone40Data were collected by the RWQCB at four locations on the New River in 2003. None of the 4 samples exceeded the acute maximum, however 3 samples were below the detection limit (0.018 ppb) and 1 was above (0.13 ppb) the chronic maximum (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCTR: freshwater acute maximum = 1.1 ppb for 4,4'DDT and freshwater chronic maximum = 0.001 ppb for 4,4'DDT as a 4-day average.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Data were collected at four locations on the New River, from the international boundary to the outlet to the Salton Sea.Samples were collected on 4/17/2003. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial243462012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2935 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. According to 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy, whenever the sample results are below the quantitation limit, and the quantitation limit is above the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the results shall not be used in the analysis. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2935 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.The results of fish tissue Line of Evidence No. 2936 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5388. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Forty-two of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and 12 of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. Fifty-four of 54 water samples exceed the CTR criteria, and the DDT degradates p,pÂ’-DDD and p,pÂ’-DDE were found in water samples in concentrations that exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   324142012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21794DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal11The one sample collected was 69.18 ug/kg and exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDE in freshwater sediments is 31.3 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: New River Outlet (723NROTWM).One sample was collected on 10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial243462012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2935 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. According to 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy, whenever the sample results are below the quantitation limit, and the quantitation limit is above the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the results shall not be used in the analysis. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2935 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.The results of fish tissue Line of Evidence No. 2936 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5388. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Forty-two of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and 12 of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. Fifty-four of 54 water samples exceed the CTR criteria, and the DDT degradates p,pÂ’-DDD and p,pÂ’-DDE were found in water samples in concentrations that exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   324152012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21795DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one sample collected was 4.43 ug/kg and did not exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDT in freshwater sediments is 62.9 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: New River Outlet (723NROTWM).One sample was collected on 10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial243462012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2935 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. According to 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy, whenever the sample results are below the quantitation limit, and the quantitation limit is above the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the results shall not be used in the analysis. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2935 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.The results of fish tissue Line of Evidence No. 2936 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5388. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Forty-two of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and 12 of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. Fifty-four of 54 water samples exceed the CTR criteria, and the DDT degradates p,pÂ’-DDD and p,pÂ’-DDE were found in water samples in concentrations that exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   324162012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21796DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one sample collected was 77.85 ug/kg and did not exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Total DDT in freshwater sediments is 572 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: New River Outlet (723NROTWM).One sample was collected on 10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial243462012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2935 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. According to 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy, whenever the sample results are below the quantitation limit, and the quantitation limit is above the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the results shall not be used in the analysis. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2935 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.The results of fish tissue Line of Evidence No. 2936 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5388. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Forty-two of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and 12 of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. Fifty-four of 54 water samples exceed the CTR criteria, and the DDT degradates p,pÂ’-DDD and p,pÂ’-DDE were found in water samples in concentrations that exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   462752012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671460Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (3 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Channel Catfish. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 11/5/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial243462012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2935 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. According to 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy, whenever the sample results are below the quantitation limit, and the quantitation limit is above the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the results shall not be used in the analysis. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2935 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.The results of fish tissue Line of Evidence No. 2936 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5388. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Forty-two of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and 12 of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. Fifty-four of 54 water samples exceed the CTR criteria, and the DDT degradates p,pÂ’-DDD and p,pÂ’-DDE were found in water samples in concentrations that exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   55852010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal4512Forty-one fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 2 locations in the river. One fish fillet samples could not be used in this assessment because the constituent was not analyzed in the sample. The 40 fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Of these total samples, 12 fish fillet samples collected at two locations exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. At the Westmorland location exceedances were found in ; 7 channel catfish fillet composite samples collected on 3/13/1979, (2)5/09/1980, (2)4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, and 9/03/1987; 3 channel catfish single fish fillet samples collected on 6/22/1978, 8/03/1990, and 9/29/1993, and; 1 Carp fillet composite sample collected on 5/24/1984. At the International Boundary location an exceedance was found in 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 7/31/1990 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 1000 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following New River locations: near the International Boundary, and near Westmorland, CA.  The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial243462012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2935 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. According to 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy, whenever the sample results are below the quantitation limit, and the quantitation limit is above the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the results shall not be used in the analysis. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2935 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.The results of fish tissue Line of Evidence No. 2936 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5388. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Forty-two of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and 12 of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. Fifty-four of 54 water samples exceed the CTR criteria, and the DDT degradates p,pÂ’-DDD and p,pÂ’-DDE were found in water samples in concentrations that exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   329332012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21844DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Zero of 8 samples collected for Sum DDE exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDE (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 31.3 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY, New River Outlet - 723NROTWM.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial243462012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2935 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. According to 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy, whenever the sample results are below the quantitation limit, and the quantitation limit is above the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the results shall not be used in the analysis. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2935 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.The results of fish tissue Line of Evidence No. 2936 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5388. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Forty-two of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and 12 of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. Fifty-four of 54 water samples exceed the CTR criteria, and the DDT degradates p,pÂ’-DDD and p,pÂ’-DDE were found in water samples in concentrations that exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   329542012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21850DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Zero of 8 samples collected for Sum DDT exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDT (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 62.9 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY, New River Outlet - 723NROTWM.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial243462012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2935 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. According to 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy, whenever the sample results are below the quantitation limit, and the quantitation limit is above the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the results shall not be used in the analysis. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2935 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.The results of fish tissue Line of Evidence No. 2936 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5388. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Forty-two of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and 12 of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. Fifty-four of 54 water samples exceed the CTR criteria, and the DDT degradates p,pÂ’-DDD and p,pÂ’-DDE were found in water samples in concentrations that exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   329792012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21856DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Zero of 8 samples collected for Total DDTs exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Total DDTs (DDD + DDE + DDT) in freshwater sediments is 572 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY, New River Outlet - 723NROTWM.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial243462012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2935 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. According to 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy, whenever the sample results are below the quantitation limit, and the quantitation limit is above the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the results shall not be used in the analysis. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2935 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.The results of fish tissue Line of Evidence No. 2936 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5388. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Forty-two of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and 12 of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. Fifty-four of 54 water samples exceed the CTR criteria, and the DDT degradates p,pÂ’-DDD and p,pÂ’-DDE were found in water samples in concentrations that exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   345492012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 26195DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120The detection limit for DDT(o,p) is 0.001 ug/l, and the reporting limit for that is 0.002 ug/l. Since the WQS is smaller than the reporting limit, none of samples can be counted. In addition the detection limit for DDT(p,p') is 0.002 ug/l and the reporting limit is 0.005 ug/l, none of the samples can be counted. The water body was assessed for the sum of DDT(o,p') and DDT(p,p').1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 4,4' DDT criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.001 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 723NRBDRY (New River at Boundary) and 723NROTWM (New River Outlet).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial243462012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2935 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. According to 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy, whenever the sample results are below the quantitation limit, and the quantitation limit is above the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the results shall not be used in the analysis. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2935 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.The results of fish tissue Line of Evidence No. 2936 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5388. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Forty-two of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and 12 of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. Fifty-four of 54 water samples exceed the CTR criteria, and the DDT degradates p,pÂ’-DDD and p,pÂ’-DDE were found in water samples in concentrations that exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   345522012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 26198DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00The detection limit for DDT(o,p) is 0.001 ug/l, and the reporting limit for that is 0.002 ug/l. Since the WQS is smaller than the reporting limit, none of samples can be counted. In addition the detection limit for DDT(p,p') is 0.002 ug/l and the reporting limit is 0.005 ug/l, none of the samples can be counted. The water body was assessed for the sum of DDT(o,p') and DDT(p,p').1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 4,4' DDT criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.001 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 723NRMSBD (Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0).Samples collected between 7/12/2006 and 8/2/2006. SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial243462012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twenty-three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2935 from 2006 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because the reporting limit was greater than the chronic maximum concentration. According to 6.1.5.5 of the Listing Policy, whenever the sample results are below the quantitation limit, and the quantitation limit is above the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline, the results shall not be used in the analysis. The data in Line of Evidence No. 2935 will not be used in the Final Use Rating.The results of fish tissue Line of Evidence No. 2936 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5388. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Forty-two of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goals, and 12 of 45 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. Fifty-four of 54 water samples exceed the CTR criteria, and the DDT degradates p,pÂ’-DDD and p,pÂ’-DDE were found in water samples in concentrations that exceeded the CTR criteria. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   462742012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671459Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet11Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (3 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Channel Catfish. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 11/5/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial222902012DiazinonSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Diazinon in the New River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Diazinon into New River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2953 is a placeholder line of evidence, it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2953 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 4868. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. LOE Nos. 32366, 5206, 5186 and 4868 are combined for a use rating determination. Twenty-three samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-three of 98 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   355052012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168225DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for diazinon is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 11 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 11 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for diazinon from Ding et al. (2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial222902012DiazinonSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Diazinon in the New River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Diazinon into New River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2953 is a placeholder line of evidence, it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2953 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 4868. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. LOE Nos. 32366, 5206, 5186 and 4868 are combined for a use rating determination. Twenty-three samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-three of 98 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   359362012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168318DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for diazinon is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 11 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 11 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for diazinon from Ding et al. (2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial222902012DiazinonSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Diazinon in the New River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Diazinon into New River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2953 is a placeholder line of evidence, it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2953 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 4868. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. LOE Nos. 32366, 5206, 5186 and 4868 are combined for a use rating determination. Twenty-three samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-three of 98 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   460862012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671461DiazinonCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. One composite (3 fish per composite) were generated from one species: channel catfish.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for diazinon in fish tissue is 1,500 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 11/5/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial222902012DiazinonSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Diazinon in the New River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Diazinon into New River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2953 is a placeholder line of evidence, it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2953 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 4868. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. LOE Nos. 32366, 5206, 5186 and 4868 are combined for a use rating determination. Twenty-three samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-three of 98 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   352132012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167731DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal124Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 4 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Finlayson, 2004).1.Water quality for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and GameData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial222902012DiazinonSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Diazinon in the New River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Diazinon into New River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2953 is a placeholder line of evidence, it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2953 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 4868. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. LOE Nos. 32366, 5206, 5186 and 4868 are combined for a use rating determination. Twenty-three samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-three of 98 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   29532006State Reviewed DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal93Numeric data generated from 4 water samples from SWAMP and 5 water samples from USGS. Three of 9 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline (LeBlanc, et al. 2004; SWAMP, 2004).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)DFG Evaluation guideline of 0.10 ug/L (Siepmann & Finlayson, 2000; Finlayson, 2004).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Five stations were sampled. All were situated along the New River from the international boundary with Mexico to the outlet (mouth) of New River in the Salton Sea. The boundary station had two exceedances and the outlet had one exceedance.Four samples were taken during the spring (May) and the fall (October) of 2002. Exceedances at both stations occurred in the fall sampling event. Five samples were collected in April 2003 and the diazinon concentration exceeded the evaluation guideline in one sample.The New River flows from Mexico through the Imperial Valley in the Salton Sea. Most of the water flowing through it comes from agricultural return flows.SWAMP QAPP. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial222902012DiazinonSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Diazinon in the New River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Diazinon into New River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2953 is a placeholder line of evidence, it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2953 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 4868. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. LOE Nos. 32366, 5206, 5186 and 4868 are combined for a use rating determination. Twenty-three samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-three of 98 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   54882010State Reviewed DiazinonCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal420Forty-one fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 2 locations in the river. Four fish fillet samples could not be used in this assessment because the constituent was not analyzed in the sample. The 37 fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 300 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following New River locations: near the International Boundary, and near Westmorland, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Forty-one fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp, flathead catfish, tilapia, spiny soft shelled turtle, and yellow bullhead were collected. Fifteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1979, (4)1980, 1981, (2)1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1991, 1995 and 1997-98. Five channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1988, 1990, 1992-93. Ten carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-86, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994. Five carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1989, 1994, 1997, and 1999. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1996. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1991-92. One spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. Five whole fish samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia and sailfin molly & mosquitofish were collected. Three red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1980. One tilapia single whole fish sample was collected in the year 1984. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial222902012DiazinonSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Diazinon in the New River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Diazinon into New River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2953 is a placeholder line of evidence, it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2953 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 4868. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. LOE Nos. 32366, 5206, 5186 and 4868 are combined for a use rating determination. Twenty-three samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-three of 98 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   52062010State Reviewed DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal6216Seventy-one water quality samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Nine water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 62 acceptable water quality samples were collected from 9/1970 through 4/1992. Of these total samples, 16 exceeded the CDFG Hazardous Assessment Criteria (USGS, 2007). The exceedences were found in samples collected from 11/17/1970, 1/18/1971, 8/26/75, 9/18/1975, 10/07/1975, 11/19/1975, 12/09/1975, 1/28,1976, 3/17/1976, 3/22/1977, 9/13/1977, 11/08/1977, 12/13/1977 from the 2 locations (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.16 ug/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and GameSamples were collected at the following New River locations: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca, and USGS Station No.10255502 located at Drop 4 near Brawley, Ca.Seventy-one samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 9/1970 through 4/1992. Sixty-nine samples were collected from 1970-1979, 1 sample was collected from 1980-1989, and 1 sample was collected from 1990-1992. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 11/17/1970 through 12/13/1977. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial222902012DiazinonSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Diazinon in the New River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Diazinon into New River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2953 is a placeholder line of evidence, it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2953 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 4868. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. LOE Nos. 32366, 5206, 5186 and 4868 are combined for a use rating determination. Twenty-three samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-three of 98 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   51862010State Reviewed DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved124Twelve water quality samples were taken at 4 locations along the river, generally collected from 9/13/2006 through 4/18/2007. Of these total samples , 4 exceeded the CDFG Hazardous Assessment Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 10/14/2006, 10/15/2006, 10/16/2006, and 10/19/2006 from all four locations (Orlando et al, 2008).1."Pesticides in Water and Suspended Sediment of the Alamo and New Rivers, Imperial Valley/Salton Sea Basin, California, 2006-07". U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Final Report prepared in cooperation with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), delivered to the CRBRWQCB. Palm Desert, CA.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.16 ug/l (1 hr. ave.) for freshwater aquatic life use protection (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and GameSamples were collected at the following New River locations: at the Outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA, downstream of Drop 4 near Brawley, CA, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, and at the International Boundary with Mexico.Twelve samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 9/13/2006 through 4/18/2007. Samples were collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea monthly from 9/2006 through 11/2006 and from 2/2007 through 4/2007. The three other locations were sampled only twice, once in 10/2006 and another time in 3/2007. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 10/14/2006 through 3/13/2007. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 10/14/2006 through 10/19/2006. Investigators used USGS methods for sample collection and analysis. Lab analysis was done by the USGS Laboratories in Sacramento, CA. All methods were approved by State Board QA officer (USGS, 2007b).1.Quality Assurance Project Plan, Imperial Valley Pesticides TMDL Assessment Studies. Water Science Center. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial222902012DiazinonSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Diazinon in the New River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Diazinon into New River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2953 is a placeholder line of evidence, it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2953 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 4868. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. LOE Nos. 32366, 5206, 5186 and 4868 are combined for a use rating determination. Twenty-three samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-three of 98 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   48682010State Reviewed DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved182Eighteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 3 locations along the New River. Of these total samples , 2 exceeded the CDFG Hazardous Assessment Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 11/04/2003, and 10/04/2004, at two different locations, at the International Boundary location, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea location near Calipatria, CA (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.16 ug/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and GameSamples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Eighteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, usually in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Three addtional samples were collected from these two locations, two in 4/2003, and one in 10/2004 The Even Hewes Highway overpass location was sampled once in 4/2003.The exceedences were found in samples collected from 11/04/2003 through 10/04/2004. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial222902012DiazinonSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2018 This listing is being addressed through the Regional Water Board adopted regulatory action. Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, certifies that the existing and modified Imperial County Farm Bureau Total Maximum Daily Load Compliance Program (ICFB TMDL Program) are adequate to correct the impairments of Diazinon in the New River. This certification revises and upgrades its current TMDL program by including farm plans with specific Management Plans aimed at preventing or controlling the discharge of Diazinon into New River. Regional Water Board staff will track, monitor, assess, and review on activities and progress of this certified program to ensure that the water quality standard can be obtained by the end of 2018.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.1, 4.5 and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 2953 is a placeholder line of evidence, it is used to indicate this was a listing made prior to 2006. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2953 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 4868. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. LOE Nos. 32366, 5206, 5186 and 4868 are combined for a use rating determination. Twenty-three samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that a newly adopted regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty-three of 98 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Regional Water Board Resolution, R7-2013-0070, was approved by the Regional Board on September 19, 2013. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by December 2018. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   323662012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21693DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone61One of the 6 samples exceeds the evaluation guideline for diazinon in this water body.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.16 ug/l for freshwater aquatic life use protection (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005).Site 723NRBDRY (New River at Boundary).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial182292012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Sixteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determinations: LOE Nos. 2940, 35327, and 36047; LOE Nos. 5202 and 4870; LOE Nos. 5107, 35503 and 35328; LOE Nos. 46088 and 5596; LOE Nos. 5261 and 5029.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. At a minimum, 74 out of 74 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and thirty-five of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   460882012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671463DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (3 fish per composite) were generated from one species: channel catfish.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 11/5/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial182292012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Sixteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determinations: LOE Nos. 2940, 35327, and 36047; LOE Nos. 5202 and 4870; LOE Nos. 5107, 35503 and 35328; LOE Nos. 46088 and 5596; LOE Nos. 5261 and 5029.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. At a minimum, 74 out of 74 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and thirty-five of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   460872012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671462DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet11Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (3 fish per composite) were generated from one species: channel catfish.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 11/5/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial182292012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Sixteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determinations: LOE Nos. 2940, 35327, and 36047; LOE Nos. 5202 and 4870; LOE Nos. 5107, 35503 and 35328; LOE Nos. 46088 and 5596; LOE Nos. 5261 and 5029.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. At a minimum, 74 out of 74 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and thirty-five of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   360472012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168349DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Dieldrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial182292012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Sixteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determinations: LOE Nos. 2940, 35327, and 36047; LOE Nos. 5202 and 4870; LOE Nos. 5107, 35503 and 35328; LOE Nos. 46088 and 5596; LOE Nos. 5261 and 5029.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. At a minimum, 74 out of 74 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and thirty-five of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   360462012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168348DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Two samples were collected but not used in the assessment because the laboratory method detection limit was above the objective, therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Dieldrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial182292012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Sixteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determinations: LOE Nos. 2940, 35327, and 36047; LOE Nos. 5202 and 4870; LOE Nos. 5107, 35503 and 35328; LOE Nos. 46088 and 5596; LOE Nos. 5261 and 5029.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. At a minimum, 74 out of 74 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and thirty-five of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   355032012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168294DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for dieldrin is 61.8 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial182292012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Sixteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determinations: LOE Nos. 2940, 35327, and 36047; LOE Nos. 5202 and 4870; LOE Nos. 5107, 35503 and 35328; LOE Nos. 46088 and 5596; LOE Nos. 5261 and 5029.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. At a minimum, 74 out of 74 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and thirty-five of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   353282012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167766DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for dieldrin is 61.8 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial182292012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Sixteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determinations: LOE Nos. 2940, 35327, and 36047; LOE Nos. 5202 and 4870; LOE Nos. 5107, 35503 and 35328; LOE Nos. 46088 and 5596; LOE Nos. 5261 and 5029.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. At a minimum, 74 out of 74 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and thirty-five of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   353272012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167765DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Dieldrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial182292012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Sixteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determinations: LOE Nos. 2940, 35327, and 36047; LOE Nos. 5202 and 4870; LOE Nos. 5107, 35503 and 35328; LOE Nos. 46088 and 5596; LOE Nos. 5261 and 5029.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. At a minimum, 74 out of 74 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and thirty-five of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   352792012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167747DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twelve samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Dieldrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial182292012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Sixteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determinations: LOE Nos. 2940, 35327, and 36047; LOE Nos. 5202 and 4870; LOE Nos. 5107, 35503 and 35328; LOE Nos. 46088 and 5596; LOE Nos. 5261 and 5029.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. At a minimum, 74 out of 74 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and thirty-five of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   55962010State Reviewed DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal460Forty-one fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 2 locations in the river. The fish fillet samples and whole fish samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following New River locations: near the International Boundary, and near Westmorland, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Forty-one fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp, flathead catfish, tilapia, spiny soft shelled turtle, and yellow bullhead were collected. Fifteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1979, (4)1980, 1981, (2)1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1991, 1995 and 1997-98. Five channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1988, 1990, 1992-93. Ten carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-86, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994. Five carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1989, 1994, 1997, and 1999. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1996. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1991-92. One spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. Five whole fish samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia and sailfin molly & mosquitofish were collected. Three red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1980. One tilapia single whole fish sample was collected in the year 1984. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial182292012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Sixteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determinations: LOE Nos. 2940, 35327, and 36047; LOE Nos. 5202 and 4870; LOE Nos. 5107, 35503 and 35328; LOE Nos. 46088 and 5596; LOE Nos. 5261 and 5029.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. At a minimum, 74 out of 74 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and thirty-five of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   54002010State Reviewed DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal3535Forty-one fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 2 locations in the river. Eight fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish samples could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentrations. The 33 fish fillet samples and 2 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Of these total samples, 33 fish fillet samples and 2 whole fish samples collected at two locations exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. At the Westmorland location the exceedances were found in; 15 channel catfish fillet composite samples collected on 3/13/1979, (4)5/09/1980, 5/24/1981, (2)4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 10/10/1985, 9/03/1987, 8/15/1991, 10/27/1995, 11/20/1997 and 11/11/1998; 5 channel catfish single fish fillet samples collected on 6/22/1978, 11/18/1988, 8/03/1990, 9/20/1992, and 9/29/1993; 5 carp fillet composite samples collected on 5/24/1981, 6/13/1983, 5/24/1984, 10/09/1985, and 10/15/1986; 2 carp single fish fillet samples collected on 6/22/1978, and 12/09/1999, and; 1spiny soft shelled turtle collected on 9/20/1992. At the International Boundary location exceedances were found in; 4 carp fillet composite samples collected on 7/31/1990, 12/18/1991, 6/16/1993, and 11/02/1994; 1 spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet sample collected on 5/12/1987; 1 sailfin molly whole fish composite sample collected on 10/01/1985, and; 1 tilapia single whole fish sample collected on 5/17/1984 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 0.46 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the following New River locations: near the International Boundary, and near Westmorland, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Forty-one fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp, flathead catfish, tilapia, spiny soft shelled turtle, and yellow bullhead were collected. Fifteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1979, (4)1980, 1981, (2)1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1991, 1995 and 1997-98. Five channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1988, 1990, 1992-93. Ten carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-86, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994. Five carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1989, 1994, 1997, and 1999. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1996. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1991-92. One spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. Five whole fish samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia and sailfin molly & mosquitofish were collected. Three red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1980. One tilapia single whole fish sample was collected in the year 1984. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 6/22/1978 through 12/09/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial182292012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Sixteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determinations: LOE Nos. 2940, 35327, and 36047; LOE Nos. 5202 and 4870; LOE Nos. 5107, 35503 and 35328; LOE Nos. 46088 and 5596; LOE Nos. 5261 and 5029.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. At a minimum, 74 out of 74 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and thirty-five of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   52612010State Reviewed DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal730Eighty-one samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Eight water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 73 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Of these total samples, none exceed the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) 0.24 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following New River locations: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca., and USGS Station No. 10255502 located at Drop 4 near Brawley, Ca.Eighty-one samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Four samples were collected in 1969, 76 samples were collected from 1970-1979, 0 samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 1 sample was collected from 1990-1992. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial182292012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Sixteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determinations: LOE Nos. 2940, 35327, and 36047; LOE Nos. 5202 and 4870; LOE Nos. 5107, 35503 and 35328; LOE Nos. 46088 and 5596; LOE Nos. 5261 and 5029.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. At a minimum, 74 out of 74 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and thirty-five of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   52022010State Reviewed DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal7373Eighty-one water samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Eight water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 73 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Of these total samples, 73 exceeded the CTR Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 8/13/1969 through 4/02/1992 at 2 locations (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.00014 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following New River locations: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca, and USGS Station No.10255502 located at Drop 4 near Brawley, Ca.Eighty-one samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Four samples were collected in 1969, 76 samples were collected from 1970-1979, no samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 1 sample was collected from 1990-1992. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 8/13/1969 through 4/02/1992. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial182292012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Sixteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determinations: LOE Nos. 2940, 35327, and 36047; LOE Nos. 5202 and 4870; LOE Nos. 5107, 35503 and 35328; LOE Nos. 46088 and 5596; LOE Nos. 5261 and 5029.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. At a minimum, 74 out of 74 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and thirty-five of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   51072010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial182292012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Sixteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determinations: LOE Nos. 2940, 35327, and 36047; LOE Nos. 5202 and 4870; LOE Nos. 5107, 35503 and 35328; LOE Nos. 46088 and 5596; LOE Nos. 5261 and 5029.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. At a minimum, 74 out of 74 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and thirty-five of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   50292010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial182292012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Sixteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determinations: LOE Nos. 2940, 35327, and 36047; LOE Nos. 5202 and 4870; LOE Nos. 5107, 35503 and 35328; LOE Nos. 46088 and 5596; LOE Nos. 5261 and 5029.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. At a minimum, 74 out of 74 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and thirty-five of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   29402006State Reviewed DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone40Data were collected by the RWQCB at four locations on the New River in 2003. All samples were non-detects with a detection limit of 0.012 ppb. Therefore, there were no exceedances (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUSEPA: freshwater acute maximum = 0.24 ppb and freshwater chronic maximum = 0.056 ppb as a 4-day average.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Data were collected at four locations on the New River, from the international boundary to the outlet to the Salton Sea.Samples were collected on 4/17/2003. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial182292012DieldrinSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Dieldrin is one of the OC compounds, which was widely used during the 1950s to early 1970s. However, Dieldrin was banned for all uses in 1985 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2, 4.1, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Sixteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determinations: LOE Nos. 2940, 35327, and 36047; LOE Nos. 5202 and 4870; LOE Nos. 5107, 35503 and 35328; LOE Nos. 46088 and 5596; LOE Nos. 5261 and 5029.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. At a minimum, 74 out of 74 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and thirty-five of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   48702010State Reviewed DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved11Fourteen water samples were taken at two locations on the river. Thirteen water sample results could not be used because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptible water quality sample was collected on 5/06/2002 from the outlet to the Salton Sea location. This sample exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.00014 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following New River sampling locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October.The exceedence was found in a sample collected on 5/06/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial227602012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. PCBs are one of the OC compounds, which were used in a wide variety of applications, including dielectric fluids in transformers and capacitors, heat transfer fluids, and lubricants in the 1970s. However, PCBs were banned for all uses in 1979 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, and LOE NOs. 5641 and 46216 are also combined for a use rating determination.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. At a minimum, 22 of 22 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   462042012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671476PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet11Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (3 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Channel Catfish. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for polychlorinated biphenyls in fish tissue is 2.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 11/5/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial227602012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. PCBs are one of the OC compounds, which were used in a wide variety of applications, including dielectric fluids in transformers and capacitors, heat transfer fluids, and lubricants in the 1970s. However, PCBs were banned for all uses in 1979 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, and LOE NOs. 5641 and 46216 are also combined for a use rating determination.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. At a minimum, 22 of 22 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   334212012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23833PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Zero of 8 samples collected for Total PCBs exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total PCB is 676 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following stations 7723NRBDRY (New River at Boundary) and 723NROTWM (New River Outlet).The samples were collected on 10/25/2005, 10/26/2005, 5/1/2006, 10/22/2007, 10/23/2007 and 4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial227602012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. PCBs are one of the OC compounds, which were used in a wide variety of applications, including dielectric fluids in transformers and capacitors, heat transfer fluids, and lubricants in the 1970s. However, PCBs were banned for all uses in 1979 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, and LOE NOs. 5641 and 46216 are also combined for a use rating determination.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. At a minimum, 22 of 22 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   334152012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23414PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40None of the 4 samples exceeded the criterion continuous concentration for total PCB. The water body was assessed for the 3 aroclors that were contained within the data set and they include aroclor 1248, aroclor 1254, and aroclor 1260.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe total PCB criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.014 ug/L. This value corresponds to the sum of aroclors 1242, 1254, 1221, 1232, 1248, 1260, and 1016 (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 723NRBDRY (New River at Boundary ) and 723NROTWM (New River Outlet).Samples collected between 4/21/2008 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial227602012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. PCBs are one of the OC compounds, which were used in a wide variety of applications, including dielectric fluids in transformers and capacitors, heat transfer fluids, and lubricants in the 1970s. However, PCBs were banned for all uses in 1979 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, and LOE NOs. 5641 and 46216 are also combined for a use rating determination.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. At a minimum, 22 of 22 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   332552012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23851PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Zero of 1 sample collected for Total PCBs exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total PCB is 676 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station 723NROTWM (New River Outlet).The samples were collected on 10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial227602012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. PCBs are one of the OC compounds, which were used in a wide variety of applications, including dielectric fluids in transformers and capacitors, heat transfer fluids, and lubricants in the 1970s. However, PCBs were banned for all uses in 1979 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, and LOE NOs. 5641 and 46216 are also combined for a use rating determination.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. At a minimum, 22 of 22 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   462162012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671477PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (3 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Channel Catfish. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total PCB concentration of 500 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 11/5/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial227602012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. PCBs are one of the OC compounds, which were used in a wide variety of applications, including dielectric fluids in transformers and capacitors, heat transfer fluids, and lubricants in the 1970s. However, PCBs were banned for all uses in 1979 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, and LOE NOs. 5641 and 46216 are also combined for a use rating determination.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. At a minimum, 22 of 22 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   54232010State Reviewed PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal2222Forty-one fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 2 locations in the river. Twenty fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and it could not be determined that the detection limit was not below the criteria concentration or the constituent was not analyzed in the sample. The 21 fish fillet samples and 1 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 5/1980 through 12/1999. Of these total samples, 21 fish fillet samples and 1 whole fish samples collected at two locations exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. At the Westmorland location exceedances were found in; 8 channel catfish fillet composite samples collected on 5/09/1980, (2)4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 9/03/1987, 8/15/1991, 11/20/1997 and 11/11/1998; 3 channel catfish single fish fillet samples collected on 8/03/1990, 9/20/1992, and 9/29/1993; 4 carp fillet composite samples collected on 6/13/1983, 5/24/1984, 10/09/1985, and 10/15/1986, and; 1 carp single fish fillet sample was collected on 12/09/1999. At the International Boundary location exceedances were found in; 4 carp fillet composite samples collected on 7/31/1990, 12/18/1991, 6/16/1993, and 11/02/1994; 1 carp single sample fish fillet sample collected on 12/10/1997, and; 1 tilapia single whole fish sample collected on 5/17/1984 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 3.6 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the following New River locations: near the International Boundary, and near Westmorland, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Forty-one fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp, flathead catfish, tilapia, spiny soft shelled turtle, and yellow bullhead were collected. Fifteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1979, (4)1980, 1981, (2)1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1991, 1995 and 1997-98. Five channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1988, 1990, 1992-93. Ten carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-86, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994. Five carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1989, 1994, 1997, and 1999. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1996. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1991-92. One spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. Five whole fish samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia and sailfin molly & mosquitofish were collected. Three red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1980. One tilapia single whole fish sample was collected in the year 1984. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/09/1980 through 12/09/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial227602012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. PCBs are one of the OC compounds, which were used in a wide variety of applications, including dielectric fluids in transformers and capacitors, heat transfer fluids, and lubricants in the 1970s. However, PCBs were banned for all uses in 1979 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, and LOE NOs. 5641 and 46216 are also combined for a use rating determination.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. At a minimum, 22 of 22 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   51072010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial227602012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. PCBs are one of the OC compounds, which were used in a wide variety of applications, including dielectric fluids in transformers and capacitors, heat transfer fluids, and lubricants in the 1970s. However, PCBs were banned for all uses in 1979 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, and LOE NOs. 5641 and 46216 are also combined for a use rating determination.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. At a minimum, 22 of 22 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   29342006State Reviewed PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal1310Ten out of 13 samples exceeded. A total of 7 filet composite and individual samples of channel catfish, 5 filet composite and individual samples of carp, and one filet composite of tilapia were collected. Channel catfish were collected in 1992-93, 1995, 1997-98, and 2001-02. Carp were collected in 1993-94, 1997, and 1999. Tilapia were collected in 1996. A 1994 carp sample, a 1995 channel catfish sample, and the 1996 tilapia sample had no detectable levels of PCB (TSMP, 2002).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedColorado River Basin RWQCB Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)OEHHA Screening Value 20 ng/g.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Two stations on the New River were sampled: at the gauging station about one mile downstream of the Lack Road Bridge near Westmorland and near the international boundary.Samples were collected during the period of 1992-1999 and 2001-02. Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1992-93 and 1994-95 Data Reports.Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 1996-2000. Department of Fish and Game.Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 2001-2002. Department of Fish and Game. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial227602012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. PCBs are one of the OC compounds, which were used in a wide variety of applications, including dielectric fluids in transformers and capacitors, heat transfer fluids, and lubricants in the 1970s. However, PCBs were banned for all uses in 1979 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, and LOE NOs. 5641 and 46216 are also combined for a use rating determination.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. At a minimum, 22 of 22 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   29332006State Reviewed PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal1070Data were collected by the RWQCB on 6/21/2001 at 9 different stations on the New River. All 9 samples were non-detects. There were no exceedances. Samples were also collected by the RWQCB from June 1995 to December 2003. None of these 98 samples were in exceedance (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUSEPA: freshwater acute total PCBs maximum = 2 ppb and freshwater chronic maximum as a 4-day average based on hardness.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected on the New River at the International Boundary.The 9 samples were collected on 6/21/2001 and the 98 samples were collected monthly from June 1995 to December 2003.For the 98 samples, temperature, pH, D.O., and conductivity were also measured.Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial227602012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. PCBs are one of the OC compounds, which were used in a wide variety of applications, including dielectric fluids in transformers and capacitors, heat transfer fluids, and lubricants in the 1970s. However, PCBs were banned for all uses in 1979 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, and LOE NOs. 5641 and 46216 are also combined for a use rating determination.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. At a minimum, 22 of 22 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   56412010State Reviewed PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal432Forty-one fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 2 locations in the river. Three fish fillet samples could not be used in this assessment because the constituent was not analyzed in the sample. The 38 fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Of these total samples, 2 fish fillet samples collected at one location exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. At the Westmorland location the exceedances were found in 2 channel catfish fillet composite samples collected on 6/13/1983, and 9/03/1987 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 500 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near Westmorland, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Forty-one fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp, flathead catfish, tilapia, spiny soft shelled turtle, and yellow bullhead were collected. Fifteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1979, (4)1980, 1981, (2)1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1991, 1995 and 1997-98. Five channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1988, 1990, 1992-93. Ten carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-86, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994. Five carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1989, 1994, 1997, and 1999. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1996. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1991-92. One spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. Five whole fish samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia and sailfin molly & mosquitofish were collected. Three red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1980. One tilapia single whole fish sample was collected in the year 1984. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Exceedances were found in samples collected on 6/13/1983 and 9/03/1987. Field procedures described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. Used CDFG's Laboratory Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181282012ToxapheneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Toxaphene is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used in the 1970s and early 1980s. However, Toxaphene was banned for all uses in 1990 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2948 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5424. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. The use rating of LOE No. 2947 is changed from not supporting to insufficient information. LOE No. 2947 was assessed in 2006 assessment cycle, and the information indicated that al four samples were non-detected with detection limit of 0.76 ppb. Since applied water quality objective was 0.73 ppb, all four samples couldn't not be used in the assessment. LOE Nos. 46219 and 5652 are combined for a use rating determination.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty of 20 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and nineteen of 48 sifh tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   462192012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671480ToxapheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. One composite (3 fish per composite) were generated from one species: channel catfish.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Toxaphene concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 11/5/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181282012ToxapheneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Toxaphene is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used in the 1970s and early 1980s. However, Toxaphene was banned for all uses in 1990 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2948 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5424. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. The use rating of LOE No. 2947 is changed from not supporting to insufficient information. LOE No. 2947 was assessed in 2006 assessment cycle, and the information indicated that al four samples were non-detected with detection limit of 0.76 ppb. Since applied water quality objective was 0.73 ppb, all four samples couldn't not be used in the assessment. LOE Nos. 46219 and 5652 are combined for a use rating determination.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty of 20 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and nineteen of 48 sifh tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   29472006State ReviewedNJK: Insufficient information to determine 305b use support- detection limit is above acute and chronic maximum.ToxapheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone40Data were collected by the RWQCB at 4 locations on the New River. All samples were below the detection limit (0.760 ppb), which is greater than the acute and chronic criteria. Therefore, the data cannot be assessed in comparison to the chronic criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUSEPA: freshwater acute maximum = 0.73 ppb and chronic maximum = 0.0002 ppb as a 4-day average.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Data were collected at four locations on the New River, from the international boundary to the outlet to the Salton Sea.Samples were collected on 4/17/2003. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181282012ToxapheneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Toxaphene is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used in the 1970s and early 1980s. However, Toxaphene was banned for all uses in 1990 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2948 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5424. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. The use rating of LOE No. 2947 is changed from not supporting to insufficient information. LOE No. 2947 was assessed in 2006 assessment cycle, and the information indicated that al four samples were non-detected with detection limit of 0.76 ppb. Since applied water quality objective was 0.73 ppb, all four samples couldn't not be used in the assessment. LOE Nos. 46219 and 5652 are combined for a use rating determination.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty of 20 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and nineteen of 48 sifh tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   29482006State Reviewed ToxapheneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal137Seven out of 13 samples exceeded. A total of 7 filet composite and individual samples of channel catfish, 5 composite and individual samples of carp, and one composite of tilapia were collected. Channel catfish were collected in 1992-93, 1995, 1997-98, and 2001-02. Carp were collected in 1993-94, 1997, and 1999. Tilapia were collected in 1996. Channel catfish samples exceeded the guideline in 1993, 1995, 1997-98 2001-02. Carp exceeded in 1999. Only the New River at Westmoreland station met the criteria in the Listing Policy (TSMP, 2002).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedColorado River Basin RWQCB Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be presenting concentration that adversely affect beneficial uses.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)OEHHA Screening Value 30 ng/g.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Two stations on the New River were sampled: at the gauging station about one mile downstream of the Lack Road Bridge near Westmorland and near the international boundary. Only the New River at Westmoreland station should be placed on the list.Samples were collected during the period of 1992-1999 and 2001-02. Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1992-93 and 1994-95 Data Reports.Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 1996-2000. Department of Fish and Game.Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 2001-2002. Department of Fish and Game. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181282012ToxapheneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Toxaphene is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used in the 1970s and early 1980s. However, Toxaphene was banned for all uses in 1990 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2948 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5424. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. The use rating of LOE No. 2947 is changed from not supporting to insufficient information. LOE No. 2947 was assessed in 2006 assessment cycle, and the information indicated that al four samples were non-detected with detection limit of 0.76 ppb. Since applied water quality objective was 0.73 ppb, all four samples couldn't not be used in the assessment. LOE Nos. 46219 and 5652 are combined for a use rating determination.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty of 20 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and nineteen of 48 sifh tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   54242010State Reviewed ToxapheneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal2020Forty-one fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 2 locations in the river. Twenty-one fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentrations. The 20 fish fillet samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 3/1979 through 12/1999. Of these total samples, 20 fish fillet samples collected at one location exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. At the Westmorland location exceedances were found in; 14 channel catfish fillet composite samples collected on 3/13/1979, (4)5/09/1980, 5/24/1981, (2)4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 9/03/1987, 8/15/1991, 10/27/1995, 11/20/1997 and 11/11/1998; 4 channel catfish single fish fillet samples collected on 6/22/1978, 11/18/1988, 8/03/1990, and 9/29/1993; 1 carp fillet composite samples collected on 5/24/1984, and; 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 12/09/1999 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 6.1 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the following New River locations: near the International Boundary, and near Westmorland, CA.Fish samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Fish samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Forty-one fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp, flathead catfish, tilapia, spiny soft shelled turtle, and yellow bullhead were collected. Fifteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1979, (4)1980, 1981, (2)1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1991, 1995 and 1997-98. Five channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1988, 1990, 1992-93. Ten carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-86, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994. Five carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1989, 1994, 1997, and 1999. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1996. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1991-92. One spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. Five whole fish samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia and sailfin molly & mosquitofish were collected. Three red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1980. One tilapia single whole fish sample was collected in the year 1984. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 3/13/1979 through 12/09/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181282012ToxapheneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Toxaphene is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used in the 1970s and early 1980s. However, Toxaphene was banned for all uses in 1990 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2948 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5424. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. The use rating of LOE No. 2947 is changed from not supporting to insufficient information. LOE No. 2947 was assessed in 2006 assessment cycle, and the information indicated that al four samples were non-detected with detection limit of 0.76 ppb. Since applied water quality objective was 0.73 ppb, all four samples couldn't not be used in the assessment. LOE Nos. 46219 and 5652 are combined for a use rating determination.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty of 20 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and nineteen of 48 sifh tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   56522010State Reviewed ToxapheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal4319Forty-one fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 2 locations in the river. One fish fillet samples and 2 whole fish samples could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentrations. The 40 fish fillet samples and 3 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 3/1979 through 12/1999. Of these total samples, 19 fish fillet samples collected at one location exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. At the Westmorland location exceedances were found in; 13 channel catfish fillet composite samples collected on 3/13/1979, (4)5/09/1980, 5/24/1981, (2)4/22/1982, 6/13/1983, 9/03/1987, 8/15/1991, 10/27/1995, and 11/20/1997; 4 channel catfish single fish fillet samples collected on 6/22/1978, 11/18/1988, 8/03/1990, and 9/29/1993; 1 carp fillet composite samples collected on 5/24/1984, and; 1 carp single fish fillet sample collected on 12/09/1999 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following New River locations: near the International Boundary, and near Westmorland, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Forty-one fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp, flathead catfish, tilapia, spiny soft shelled turtle, and yellow bullhead were collected. Fifteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1979, (4)1980, 1981, (2)1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1991, 1995 and 1997-98. Five channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1988, 1990, 1992-93. Ten carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-86, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994. Five carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1989, 1994, 1997, and 1999. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1996. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1991-92. One spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. Five whole fish samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia and sailfin molly & mosquitofish were collected. Three red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1980. One tilapia single whole fish sample was collected in the year 1984. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Exceedances were found in samples collected from 3/13/1979 through 12/09/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181282012ToxapheneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2030 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory actions: New River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Imperial Valley Drains (IVDs) Sediment TMDL and Prohibition. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Toxaphene is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used in the 1970s and early 1980s. However, Toxaphene was banned for all uses in 1990 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by the existing regulatory actions are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the New River have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of New River OC compounds. Major responsible parties for implementing the TMDL and the Prohibition are Imperial Valley farmers/growers and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The New River WQSs for OC compounds are expected to be attained through continued implementation and improvement of sediment MPs by Imperial Valley farmers/growers, and a drain water quality improvement plan (DWQIP) by the IID. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the New River will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2030.YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2948 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5424. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. The use rating of LOE No. 2947 is changed from not supporting to insufficient information. LOE No. 2947 was assessed in 2006 assessment cycle, and the information indicated that al four samples were non-detected with detection limit of 0.76 ppb. Since applied water quality objective was 0.73 ppb, all four samples couldn't not be used in the assessment. LOE Nos. 46219 and 5652 are combined for a use rating determination.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty of 20 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and nineteen of 48 sifh tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Imperial Valley Drains sediment TMDL and Prohibition had been approved by the Regional Board in 2005 and approved by the USEPA in 2005; the New River sediment TMDL had been approved by the Regional Board in 2002 and approved by the USEPA in 2003. These are expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2030. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   462182012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671479ToxapheneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. One composite (3 fish per composite) were generated from one species: channel catfish. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for toxaphene in fish tissue is 4.3 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 11/5/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside223072012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2020 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory action: Regional Water Board agricultural waiver order (Order R7-2012-0047). Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural uses in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by existing regulatory action and its continued implementation and improvement of the requirements established in the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon (PVOD) have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of PVOD OC compounds. The responsible parties for implementing the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are: (1)farmland owners, renters/lessees, and operators/growers in the Palo Verde area who discharge or may discharge agricultural wastewater to PVOD; and (2)Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID) and individuals who conduct drain operation and maintenance (O&M) activities that could affect the quality of water in PVOD.The Waiver is funded through fees, and includes MPs, water monitoring plan and enforceable actions to ensure that the WQSs are met. In addition, Regional Water Board staff plans to conduct water, sediment, and fish tissue monitoring through the State Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) twice a year to track and ensure attainment of DDT WQSs. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the PVOD will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2020.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2875 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5376. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Thirteen of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline for DDT, and two of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for p,pÂ’-DDE. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Palo Verde Ag Waiver was approved by the Regional Board on September 20, 2012. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2020. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   462492012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671487Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. Two composites (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside223072012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2020 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory action: Regional Water Board agricultural waiver order (Order R7-2012-0047). Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural uses in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by existing regulatory action and its continued implementation and improvement of the requirements established in the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon (PVOD) have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of PVOD OC compounds. The responsible parties for implementing the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are: (1)farmland owners, renters/lessees, and operators/growers in the Palo Verde area who discharge or may discharge agricultural wastewater to PVOD; and (2)Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID) and individuals who conduct drain operation and maintenance (O&M) activities that could affect the quality of water in PVOD.The Waiver is funded through fees, and includes MPs, water monitoring plan and enforceable actions to ensure that the WQSs are met. In addition, Regional Water Board staff plans to conduct water, sediment, and fish tissue monitoring through the State Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) twice a year to track and ensure attainment of DDT WQSs. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the PVOD will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2020.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2875 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5376. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Thirteen of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline for DDT, and two of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for p,pÂ’-DDE. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Palo Verde Ag Waiver was approved by the Regional Board on September 20, 2012. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2020. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   345502012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 26196DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00The detection limit for DDT(o,p) is 0.001 ug/l, and the reporting limit for that is 0.002 ug/l. Since the WQS is smaller than the reporting limit, none of samples can be counted. In addition the detection limit for DDT(p,p') is 0.002 ug/l and the reporting limit is 0.005 ug/l, none of the samples can be counted. The water body was assessed for the sum of DDT(o,p') and DDT(p,p').1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 4,4' DDT criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.001 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 715CPVLG1 (Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)) and 715CPVOD2 (Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2)).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside223072012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2020 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory action: Regional Water Board agricultural waiver order (Order R7-2012-0047). Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural uses in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by existing regulatory action and its continued implementation and improvement of the requirements established in the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon (PVOD) have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of PVOD OC compounds. The responsible parties for implementing the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are: (1)farmland owners, renters/lessees, and operators/growers in the Palo Verde area who discharge or may discharge agricultural wastewater to PVOD; and (2)Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID) and individuals who conduct drain operation and maintenance (O&M) activities that could affect the quality of water in PVOD.The Waiver is funded through fees, and includes MPs, water monitoring plan and enforceable actions to ensure that the WQSs are met. In addition, Regional Water Board staff plans to conduct water, sediment, and fish tissue monitoring through the State Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) twice a year to track and ensure attainment of DDT WQSs. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the PVOD will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2020.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2875 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5376. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Thirteen of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline for DDT, and two of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for p,pÂ’-DDE. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Palo Verde Ag Waiver was approved by the Regional Board on September 20, 2012. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2020. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   462502012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671488Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. Two composites (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside223072012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2020 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory action: Regional Water Board agricultural waiver order (Order R7-2012-0047). Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural uses in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by existing regulatory action and its continued implementation and improvement of the requirements established in the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon (PVOD) have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of PVOD OC compounds. The responsible parties for implementing the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are: (1)farmland owners, renters/lessees, and operators/growers in the Palo Verde area who discharge or may discharge agricultural wastewater to PVOD; and (2)Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID) and individuals who conduct drain operation and maintenance (O&M) activities that could affect the quality of water in PVOD.The Waiver is funded through fees, and includes MPs, water monitoring plan and enforceable actions to ensure that the WQSs are met. In addition, Regional Water Board staff plans to conduct water, sediment, and fish tissue monitoring through the State Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) twice a year to track and ensure attainment of DDT WQSs. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the PVOD will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2020.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2875 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5376. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Thirteen of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline for DDT, and two of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for p,pÂ’-DDE. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Palo Verde Ag Waiver was approved by the Regional Board on September 20, 2012. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2020. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   329802012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21857DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Zero of 8 samples collected for Total DDTs exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Total DDTs (DDD + DDE + DDT) in freshwater sediments is 572 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside223072012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2020 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory action: Regional Water Board agricultural waiver order (Order R7-2012-0047). Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural uses in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by existing regulatory action and its continued implementation and improvement of the requirements established in the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon (PVOD) have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of PVOD OC compounds. The responsible parties for implementing the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are: (1)farmland owners, renters/lessees, and operators/growers in the Palo Verde area who discharge or may discharge agricultural wastewater to PVOD; and (2)Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID) and individuals who conduct drain operation and maintenance (O&M) activities that could affect the quality of water in PVOD.The Waiver is funded through fees, and includes MPs, water monitoring plan and enforceable actions to ensure that the WQSs are met. In addition, Regional Water Board staff plans to conduct water, sediment, and fish tissue monitoring through the State Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) twice a year to track and ensure attainment of DDT WQSs. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the PVOD will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2020.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2875 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5376. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Thirteen of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline for DDT, and two of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for p,pÂ’-DDE. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Palo Verde Ag Waiver was approved by the Regional Board on September 20, 2012. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2020. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   329552012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21851DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Zero of 8 samples collected for Sum DDT exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDT (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 62.9 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside223072012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2020 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory action: Regional Water Board agricultural waiver order (Order R7-2012-0047). Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural uses in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by existing regulatory action and its continued implementation and improvement of the requirements established in the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon (PVOD) have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of PVOD OC compounds. The responsible parties for implementing the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are: (1)farmland owners, renters/lessees, and operators/growers in the Palo Verde area who discharge or may discharge agricultural wastewater to PVOD; and (2)Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID) and individuals who conduct drain operation and maintenance (O&M) activities that could affect the quality of water in PVOD.The Waiver is funded through fees, and includes MPs, water monitoring plan and enforceable actions to ensure that the WQSs are met. In addition, Regional Water Board staff plans to conduct water, sediment, and fish tissue monitoring through the State Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) twice a year to track and ensure attainment of DDT WQSs. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the PVOD will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2020.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2875 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5376. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Thirteen of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline for DDT, and two of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for p,pÂ’-DDE. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Palo Verde Ag Waiver was approved by the Regional Board on September 20, 2012. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2020. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   329342012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21845DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Zero of 8 samples collected for Sum DDE exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDE (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 31.3 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside223072012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2020 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory action: Regional Water Board agricultural waiver order (Order R7-2012-0047). Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural uses in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by existing regulatory action and its continued implementation and improvement of the requirements established in the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon (PVOD) have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of PVOD OC compounds. The responsible parties for implementing the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are: (1)farmland owners, renters/lessees, and operators/growers in the Palo Verde area who discharge or may discharge agricultural wastewater to PVOD; and (2)Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID) and individuals who conduct drain operation and maintenance (O&M) activities that could affect the quality of water in PVOD.The Waiver is funded through fees, and includes MPs, water monitoring plan and enforceable actions to ensure that the WQSs are met. In addition, Regional Water Board staff plans to conduct water, sediment, and fish tissue monitoring through the State Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) twice a year to track and ensure attainment of DDT WQSs. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the PVOD will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2020.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2875 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5376. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Thirteen of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline for DDT, and two of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for p,pÂ’-DDE. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Palo Verde Ag Waiver was approved by the Regional Board on September 20, 2012. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2020. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   28752006State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal114Four out of 11 samples exceeded. A total of 10 filet composite samples and one individual sample of largemouth bass, carp, channel catfish, and flathead catfish were collected. Carp were collected in 1992 and 1995. Channel catfish were collected in 1995. Flathead catfish were collected in 1992 and 2000. The 2000 sample of flathead was the lone individual sample. Largemouth bass were collected in 1995-96 and 1998-2002. The guideline was exceeded in the 1992 and 1995 carp samples, the 1992 fathead sample, and the 1995 channel catfish sample. Largemouth bass did not exceed the guideline (TSMP, 2002).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedColorado River Basin RWQCB Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)OEHHA Screening Value 100 ng/g.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)One station located from the boat ramp off Clark Way in Palo Verde downstream 3/4 of a mile was sampled.Samples were collected annually 1992, 1995-96, 1998-2002. Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1992-93 and 1994-95 Data Reports.Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 1996-2000. Department of Fish and Game.Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 2001-2002. Department of Fish and Game. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside223072012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2020 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory action: Regional Water Board agricultural waiver order (Order R7-2012-0047). Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural uses in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by existing regulatory action and its continued implementation and improvement of the requirements established in the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon (PVOD) have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of PVOD OC compounds. The responsible parties for implementing the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are: (1)farmland owners, renters/lessees, and operators/growers in the Palo Verde area who discharge or may discharge agricultural wastewater to PVOD; and (2)Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID) and individuals who conduct drain operation and maintenance (O&M) activities that could affect the quality of water in PVOD.The Waiver is funded through fees, and includes MPs, water monitoring plan and enforceable actions to ensure that the WQSs are met. In addition, Regional Water Board staff plans to conduct water, sediment, and fish tissue monitoring through the State Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) twice a year to track and ensure attainment of DDT WQSs. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the PVOD will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2020.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2875 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5376. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Thirteen of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline for DDT, and two of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for p,pÂ’-DDE. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Palo Verde Ag Waiver was approved by the Regional Board on September 20, 2012. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2020. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   48552010State Reviewed p,p'-DDECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved22Fourteen water samples were taken at two locations in the Palo Verde area. Twelve water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 2 acceptable water samples, collected from the outfall drain and lagoon areas on 11/03/2003, exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.00059 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon area.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Both exceedences were found in samples collected on 11/03/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside223072012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2020 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory action: Regional Water Board agricultural waiver order (Order R7-2012-0047). Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural uses in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by existing regulatory action and its continued implementation and improvement of the requirements established in the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon (PVOD) have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of PVOD OC compounds. The responsible parties for implementing the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are: (1)farmland owners, renters/lessees, and operators/growers in the Palo Verde area who discharge or may discharge agricultural wastewater to PVOD; and (2)Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID) and individuals who conduct drain operation and maintenance (O&M) activities that could affect the quality of water in PVOD.The Waiver is funded through fees, and includes MPs, water monitoring plan and enforceable actions to ensure that the WQSs are met. In addition, Regional Water Board staff plans to conduct water, sediment, and fish tissue monitoring through the State Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) twice a year to track and ensure attainment of DDT WQSs. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the PVOD will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2020.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2875 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5376. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Thirteen of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline for DDT, and two of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for p,pÂ’-DDE. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Palo Verde Ag Waiver was approved by the Regional Board on September 20, 2012. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2020. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   49712010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1724 ug/l Chromium, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside223072012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2020 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory action: Regional Water Board agricultural waiver order (Order R7-2012-0047). Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural uses in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by existing regulatory action and its continued implementation and improvement of the requirements established in the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon (PVOD) have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of PVOD OC compounds. The responsible parties for implementing the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are: (1)farmland owners, renters/lessees, and operators/growers in the Palo Verde area who discharge or may discharge agricultural wastewater to PVOD; and (2)Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID) and individuals who conduct drain operation and maintenance (O&M) activities that could affect the quality of water in PVOD.The Waiver is funded through fees, and includes MPs, water monitoring plan and enforceable actions to ensure that the WQSs are met. In addition, Regional Water Board staff plans to conduct water, sediment, and fish tissue monitoring through the State Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) twice a year to track and ensure attainment of DDT WQSs. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the PVOD will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2020.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2875 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5376. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Thirteen of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline for DDT, and two of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for p,pÂ’-DDE. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Palo Verde Ag Waiver was approved by the Regional Board on September 20, 2012. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2020. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   53762010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal1413Fourteen fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the Palo Verde outfall drain. Fish samples were generally collected from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 13 fish fillet samples exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. The exceedances were found in; 2 Channel Catfish fillet composite samples collected on 4/14/1986 and 10/25/1995; 5 Carp fillet composite samples collected on 4/14/1986, 9/09/1987, 8/19/1991, 9/22/1992, and 10/25/1995; 1 Flathead Catfish fillet composite sample collected on 9/22/1992; 4 largemouth bass fillet composite samples collected on 10/25/1995, 11/02/1996, 11/12/1998, and 12/07/1999, and; 1 Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample collected on 9/09/1987 (TSMP, 2007)1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 21 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the Palo Verde area in the Outfall Drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected and analyzed annually from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Fourteen fish filet samples of largemouth bass, carp, Mozambique tilapia, channel catfish, and flathead catfish were collected. Four largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1995-96, 1998-1999. Five carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1986-87, 1991-1992, and 1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1987. Two channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in in the year 1986, and 1995. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 2000 and one flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 4/14/1986 through 12/07/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside223072012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2020 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory action: Regional Water Board agricultural waiver order (Order R7-2012-0047). Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural uses in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by existing regulatory action and its continued implementation and improvement of the requirements established in the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon (PVOD) have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of PVOD OC compounds. The responsible parties for implementing the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are: (1)farmland owners, renters/lessees, and operators/growers in the Palo Verde area who discharge or may discharge agricultural wastewater to PVOD; and (2)Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID) and individuals who conduct drain operation and maintenance (O&M) activities that could affect the quality of water in PVOD.The Waiver is funded through fees, and includes MPs, water monitoring plan and enforceable actions to ensure that the WQSs are met. In addition, Regional Water Board staff plans to conduct water, sediment, and fish tissue monitoring through the State Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) twice a year to track and ensure attainment of DDT WQSs. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the PVOD will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2020.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2875 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5376. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Thirteen of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline for DDT, and two of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for p,pÂ’-DDE. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Palo Verde Ag Waiver was approved by the Regional Board on September 20, 2012. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2020. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   55832010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal141Fourteen fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the Palo Verde outfall drain. Fish samples were generally collected from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 1 fish fillet sample exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. The exceedence was found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 4/14/1986 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 1000 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Palo Verde area in the Outfall Drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected and analyzed annually from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Fourteen fish filet samples of largemouth bass, carp, Mozambique tilapia, channel catfish, and flathead catfish were collected. Four largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1995-96, 1998-1999. Five carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1986-87, 1991-1992, and 1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1987. Two channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in in the year 1986, and 1995. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 2000 and one flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. An exceedance was found in a sample collected on 4/14/1986. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside223072012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Source UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2020 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory action: Regional Water Board agricultural waiver order (Order R7-2012-0047). Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. DDT is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used for mainly agricultural uses before 1960s. However, DDT was banned for agricultural uses in 1972 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by existing regulatory action and its continued implementation and improvement of the requirements established in the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon (PVOD) have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of PVOD OC compounds. The responsible parties for implementing the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are: (1)farmland owners, renters/lessees, and operators/growers in the Palo Verde area who discharge or may discharge agricultural wastewater to PVOD; and (2)Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID) and individuals who conduct drain operation and maintenance (O&M) activities that could affect the quality of water in PVOD.The Waiver is funded through fees, and includes MPs, water monitoring plan and enforceable actions to ensure that the WQSs are met. In addition, Regional Water Board staff plans to conduct water, sediment, and fish tissue monitoring through the State Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) twice a year to track and ensure attainment of DDT WQSs. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the PVOD will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2020.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 2875 are not included in the Final Use Rating because the data contained in the line of evidence is identical to or overlaps with data in Line of Evidence No. 5376. This prevents data from being counted twice in the Final Use Rating. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Thirteen of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline for DDT, and two of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for p,pÂ’-DDE. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Palo Verde Ag Waiver was approved by the Regional Board on September 20, 2012. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2020. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   329142012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21839DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Zero of 8 samples collected for Sum DDD exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDD (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 28.0 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside223202012ToxapheneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2020 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory action: Regional Water Board agricultural waiver order (Order R7-2012-0047). Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Toxaphene is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used in the 1970s and early 1980s. However, Toxaphene was banned for all uses in 1990 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by existing regulatory action and its continued implementation and improvement of the requirements established in the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon (PVOD) have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of PVOD OC compounds. The responsible parties for implementing the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are: (1)farmland owners, renters/lessees, and operators/growers in the Palo Verde area who discharge or may discharge agricultural wastewater to PVOD; and (2)Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID) and individuals who conduct drain operation and maintenance (O&M) activities that could affect the quality of water in PVOD.The Waiver is funded through fees, and includes MPs, water monitoring plan and enforceable actions to ensure that the WQSs are met. In addition, Regional Water Board staff plans to conduct water, sediment, and fish tissue monitoring through the State Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) twice a year to track and ensure attainment of DDT WQSs. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the PVOD will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2020.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Three of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. This exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Palo Verde Ag Waiver was approved by the Regional Board on September 20, 2012. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2020. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   461922012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671508ToxapheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. Two composites (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Toxaphene concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside223202012ToxapheneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2020 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory action: Regional Water Board agricultural waiver order (Order R7-2012-0047). Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Toxaphene is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used in the 1970s and early 1980s. However, Toxaphene was banned for all uses in 1990 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by existing regulatory action and its continued implementation and improvement of the requirements established in the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon (PVOD) have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of PVOD OC compounds. The responsible parties for implementing the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are: (1)farmland owners, renters/lessees, and operators/growers in the Palo Verde area who discharge or may discharge agricultural wastewater to PVOD; and (2)Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID) and individuals who conduct drain operation and maintenance (O&M) activities that could affect the quality of water in PVOD.The Waiver is funded through fees, and includes MPs, water monitoring plan and enforceable actions to ensure that the WQSs are met. In addition, Regional Water Board staff plans to conduct water, sediment, and fish tissue monitoring through the State Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) twice a year to track and ensure attainment of DDT WQSs. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the PVOD will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2020.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Three of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. This exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Palo Verde Ag Waiver was approved by the Regional Board on September 20, 2012. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2020. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   461912012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671507ToxapheneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. Two composites (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. Two samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for toxaphene in fish tissue is 4.3 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside223202012ToxapheneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2020 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory action: Regional Water Board agricultural waiver order (Order R7-2012-0047). Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Toxaphene is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used in the 1970s and early 1980s. However, Toxaphene was banned for all uses in 1990 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by existing regulatory action and its continued implementation and improvement of the requirements established in the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon (PVOD) have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of PVOD OC compounds. The responsible parties for implementing the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are: (1)farmland owners, renters/lessees, and operators/growers in the Palo Verde area who discharge or may discharge agricultural wastewater to PVOD; and (2)Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID) and individuals who conduct drain operation and maintenance (O&M) activities that could affect the quality of water in PVOD.The Waiver is funded through fees, and includes MPs, water monitoring plan and enforceable actions to ensure that the WQSs are met. In addition, Regional Water Board staff plans to conduct water, sediment, and fish tissue monitoring through the State Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) twice a year to track and ensure attainment of DDT WQSs. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the PVOD will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2020.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Three of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. This exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Palo Verde Ag Waiver was approved by the Regional Board on September 20, 2012. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2020. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   56492010State Reviewed ToxapheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal143Fourteen fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the Palo Verde outfall drain. Fish samples were generally collected from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 3 fish fillet samples exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. The exceedances were found in; 2 channel catfish fillet composite samples collected on 4/14/1986 and 10/25/1995 and; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 8/19/1991 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Palo Verde area in the Outfall Drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected and analyzed annually from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Fourteen fish filet samples of largemouth bass, carp, Mozambique tilapia, channel catfish, and flathead catfish were collected. Four largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1995-96, 1998-1999. Five carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1986-87, 1991-1992, and 1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1987. Two channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in in the year 1986, and 1995. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 2000 and one flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Exceedances were found in samples collected from 4/14/1986 through 10/25/1995. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside223202012ToxapheneSource UnknownDo Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)Revised    2020 This listing is being addressed through existing regulatory action: Regional Water Board agricultural waiver order (Order R7-2012-0047). Organochlorine (OC) pesticides are man-made chemicals. There are no natural sources of these OC compounds. Toxaphene is one of the OC compounds, which was heavily used in the 1970s and early 1980s. However, Toxaphene was banned for all uses in 1990 in the U.S. Since OC compounds are attached to sediments, sediment management Practices (MPs) required by existing regulatory action and its continued implementation and improvement of the requirements established in the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are expected to result in attainment of the water quality standards. Additionally, OC compounds are no longer legally sold or used in the U.S., and concentrations of OC compounds in the Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon (PVOD) have been reduced significantly. In addition, Regional Water Board staff is not aware of any other feasible and more effective MPs to reduce the concentrations of PVOD OC compounds. The responsible parties for implementing the Palo Verde Ag Waiver are: (1)farmland owners, renters/lessees, and operators/growers in the Palo Verde area who discharge or may discharge agricultural wastewater to PVOD; and (2)Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID) and individuals who conduct drain operation and maintenance (O&M) activities that could affect the quality of water in PVOD.The Waiver is funded through fees, and includes MPs, water monitoring plan and enforceable actions to ensure that the WQSs are met. In addition, Regional Water Board staff plans to conduct water, sediment, and fish tissue monitoring through the State Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) twice a year to track and ensure attainment of DDT WQSs. Regional Water Board staff estimates that the PVOD will meet WQSs for OC compounds by the year 2020.YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 and 4.5 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because the RWQCB has determined that an existing regulatory program is reasonably expected to result in attainment of the standard within a reasonable, specified timeframe. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Three of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. This exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Palo Verde Ag Waiver was approved by the Regional Board on September 20, 2012. This is expected to attain applicable water quality standards by 2020. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded.   54642010State Reviewed ToxapheneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal33Fourteen fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the Palo Verde outfall drain. Eleven fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 3 acceptabe fish fillet samples were generally collected from 4/1986 through 10/1995. Of these total samples, 3 fish fillet samples exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. The exceedances were found in ;2 channel catfish fillet composite samples collected on 4/14/1986 and 10/25/1995 and; 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 8/19/1991 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 6.1 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the Palo Verde area in the Outfall Drain.Fish samples were generally collected and analyzed annually from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Fish samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Fourteen fish filet samples of largemouth bass, carp, Mozambique tilapia, channel catfish, and flathead catfish were collected. Four largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1995-96, 1998-1999. Five carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1986-87, 1991-1992, and 1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1987. Two channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the year 1986, and 1995. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 2000 and one flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. The exceedances were found in samples collected from 4/14/1986 through 10/25/1995. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial2954420121,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Line of evidence No. 29649 contained multiple pollutants and received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information in previous assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline was available.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of four samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality criteria for human health protection from consumption of organisms only and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   296492010State Reviewed 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chloroform, Methylene Bromide, Bromochloromethane, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane, 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropane, 2,2-Dichloropropane, or 1,1-Dichloropropene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial2954420121,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Line of evidence No. 29649 contained multiple pollutants and received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information in previous assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline was available.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of four samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality criteria for human health protection from consumption of organisms only and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353352012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167664ChloroformCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Chloroform.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Chloroform criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 470 ug/L (The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria 2009).1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial1841520121,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 18 samples exceeded theCalifornia Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50112010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 11 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial1841520121,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 18 samples exceeded theCalifornia Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356452012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1681301,1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1, 2, 2-Tetrachloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 11 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial2139520121,1,2-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 18 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50142010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial2139520121,1,2-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 18 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347252012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674581,1,2-TrichloroethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 42 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial2152320121,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674691,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene ChlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1-Dichloroethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1-Dichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 3.2 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial2152320121,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50172010State Reviewed 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Twelve water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Twelve water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial2956120121,2,3-Trichlorobenzene | Chloroethane | Dichlorodifluoromethane | Methyl chloride (Chloromethane) | cis-1,3-Dichloropropene | trans-1,3-Dichloropropene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, and 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298322010State Reviewed 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene | Chloroethane | Dichlorodifluoromethane | Methyl chloride (Chloromethane) | cis-1,3-Dichloropropene | trans-1,3-DichloropropeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved2 Two water quality samples were collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed in May 2002 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial3049320121,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3.None of four water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347932012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674781,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2, 4-Trichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene is 70 ug/l for water and fish consumption.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial2953120121,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | Bromobenzene | Cumene | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) | n-Butylbenzene | n-Propylbenzene | sec-Butylbenzene | tert-Butylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, and tert-Butylbenzene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene or the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene or the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299942010State Reviewed delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal8 Eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were not collected in October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial2953120121,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | Bromobenzene | Cumene | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) | n-Butylbenzene | n-Propylbenzene | sec-Butylbenzene | tert-Butylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, and tert-Butylbenzene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene or the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene or the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296472010State Reviewed 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | Bromobenzene | Cumene | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) | n-Butylbenzene | n-Propylbenzene | sec-Butylbenzene | tert-ButylbenzeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial2153320121,2-Dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 18 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675001,2-DichloroethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichloroethane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-Dichloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 99 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial2153320121,2-Dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 18 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50132010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial3049220121,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of four water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   348152012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675181,2-Dichloroethylene,-transCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-trans-dichlorethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-trans-dichlorethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 140,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial2152420121,2-Dichloropropane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 18 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50132010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial2152420121,2-Dichloropropane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 18 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347842012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675091,2-DichloropropaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichloropropane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-Dichloropropane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 39 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial2952620121-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, and 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298172010State Reviewed 1-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | NaphthaleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial2952620121-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, and 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299972010State Reviewed 1-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | AcenaphthyleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial2952520121-Methylphenanthrene | Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Phenanthrene, and 1-Methylphenanthrene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299962010State Reviewed 1-MethylphenanthreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial2952520121-Methylphenanthrene | Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Phenanthrene, and 1-Methylphenanthrene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296512010State Reviewed 1-Methylphenanthrene | PhenanthreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial2953220122-Chlorotoluene | 4-Chlorotoluene | p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, and p-Cymene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296482010State Reviewed 2-Chlorotoluene | 4-Chlorotoluene | p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial2956920122-Hexanone | Acetone | Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) | Methyl isobutyl ketone (Methyl-2-Pentanone) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, and 2-Hexanone consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone,or 2-Hexanone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, or 2-Hexanone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298332010State Reviewed 2-Hexanone | Acetone | Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) | Methyl isobutyl ketone (Methyl-2-Pentanone)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved2 Two water quality samples were collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, or 2-Hexanone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed in May 2002 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216122012Acenaphthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutnat was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However the use support rating has been changed from fully supporting to insufficient because the minimum sample size required by the Listing Policy is not met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50132010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial293522012Acenaphthene | Dichlorobenzophenone | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Acenaphthene, pp-DCBP, and Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, pp-DCBP, or Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, pp-DCBP, or Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300232010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Dichlorobenzophenone | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, pp-DCBP, or Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181912012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of one water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organism from this water, and none of 41 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria protecting aquatic life uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   28812006State Reviewed AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal14 Data were collected by the RWQCB on 4/15/2003 and 6/21/01 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. Of the 14 samples, all samples were non-detects, and did not exceed either of the criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCTR: 3 ppb freshwater acute maximum.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: AR-B (at the International Boundary), AR-D10 (Lower Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #10), AR-D8 (Central Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #8), AR-D6A (Holtville Main Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6A), AR-D6 (Rose Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6), AR-D3 (Central Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #3), and at AR-GRB.All samples were collected on 4/15/2003 and 6/21/01. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181912012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of one water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organism from this water, and none of 41 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria protecting aquatic life uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   48512010State Reviewed AldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved11Fourteen water samples were taken at two locations on the river. Thirteen water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water sample, collected near the outlet to the Salton Sea location on 5/06/2002, exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.00014 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on the Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were usually collected in May and October.The exceedence was found in a sample collected on 5/06/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181912012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of one water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organism from this water, and none of 41 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria protecting aquatic life uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460672012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671274AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at Drop 6A Holtville Drain - 723ARDP6A, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River/Brawley - 723ARBRAW]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181912012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of one water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organism from this water, and none of 41 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria protecting aquatic life uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   348222012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167556AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Aldrin criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 3 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181912012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of one water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organism from this water, and none of 41 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria protecting aquatic life uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347902012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167545AldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twelve samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Aldrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181912012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of one water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organism from this water, and none of 41 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria protecting aquatic life uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55682010State Reviewed AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal350Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181912012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of one water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organism from this water, and none of 41 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria protecting aquatic life uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52502010State Reviewed AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal10Fifty-five samples were taken at 1 location on the river. Fifty-four water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 1 acceptable water quality sample was collected on 4/01/1992. This sample did not exceed the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) 3 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Sample was collected at the following Alamo River location: USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.Fifty-five samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Three samples were collected in 1969, 51 samples were collected from 1970-1979, no samples were collected from 1980-1989, 1 sample was collected from 1990-1992. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181912012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of one water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organism from this water, and none of 41 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria protecting aquatic life uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50062010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial293432012Aldrin | Chlorpyrifos | Diazinon | Toxaphene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle for Aldrin, but Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon and Toxaphene will be assessed with new data and standard. Therefore, the previous conclusion for Aldrin remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Aldrin consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aldrin for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aldrin for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300222010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlorpyrifos | Diazinon | ToxapheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295702012Aluminum | Manganese | Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Aluminum, Manganese, and Silver consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300192010State Reviewed Aluminum | Manganese | SilverWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal9 Nine sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Nine sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. A sample was not collected from the International Boundary sampling location in May of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295102012Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn | Terbutryn Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle except prometryn. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged except prometryn, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Ametryn, Simetryn, and Terbutryn consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ametryn, Simetryn, or Terbutryn for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ametryn, Simetryn, or Terbutryn for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298262010State Reviewed Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn | TerbutrynWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved8 Eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, or Terbutryn for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were not collected in 11/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216632012Anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However the use rating was changed from fully supporting to insufficient information. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50132010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial293462012Anthracene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 30015 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evalaution guideline was available for this pollutnat. However, an evaluation guideline is avaialble in current assessment cycyle, and the data used in LOE No. 30015 is reassessed, which is shown in LOE No. 46545. Thus the LOE No. 30015 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 32419 and 46545 are combined to determine the final use rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 18 samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline used to interpret the narrative water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   300152010State Reviewed Anthracene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Dibenz[a,h]anthraceneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial293462012Anthracene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 30015 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evalaution guideline was available for this pollutnat. However, an evaluation guideline is avaialble in current assessment cycyle, and the data used in LOE No. 30015 is reassessed, which is shown in LOE No. 46545. Thus the LOE No. 30015 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 32419 and 46545 are combined to determine the final use rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 18 samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline used to interpret the narrative water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   324192012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21799AnthraceneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Zero of the 8 samples collected for Anthracene (sum of c0-c4) exceed the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for anthracene in freshwater sediments is 845 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following stations: Alamo River at International Boundary (723ARINTL) and Alamo River Outlet (723ARGRB1).The samples were collected on 10/25/2005-4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial293462012Anthracene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 30015 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evalaution guideline was available for this pollutnat. However, an evaluation guideline is avaialble in current assessment cycyle, and the data used in LOE No. 30015 is reassessed, which is shown in LOE No. 46545. Thus the LOE No. 30015 is not included in the final use rating. LOEs 32419 and 46545 are combined to determine the final use rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 18 samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline used to interpret the narrative water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465452012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) AnthraceneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for anthracene in freshwater sediments is 845 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial211042012Antimony Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, the use support rating was changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size to determine if the water quality standards are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 4 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   52632010State Reviewed AntimonyWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Four water quality samples were taken at 1 location along the river, generally collected from 9/1978 through 10/1988. Of these total samples , none exceeded the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 4,300 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River location: USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.Four samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 9/1978 through 10/1988. One samples was collected in 1978, 2 samples were collected in 1979, and 1 sample was collected in 1988. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184682012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.One fish tissue sample exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Ruls criterion continuous concentration for protection of freshwater aquatic life. None of 81 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Ruls criterion maximum concentration for protection of freshwater aquatic life.None of 81 water samples exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. One of 9 fish tissue samples xeceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50032010State Reviewed Arsenic | Chromium (total)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved240Twenty-four water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 340 ug/l Arsenic, and 1724 ug/l Chromium (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, Drop 8, Drop 6A, Drop 6, Drop 3, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Twenty-four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184682012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.One fish tissue sample exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Ruls criterion continuous concentration for protection of freshwater aquatic life. None of 81 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Ruls criterion maximum concentration for protection of freshwater aquatic life.None of 81 water samples exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. One of 9 fish tissue samples xeceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50192010State Reviewed ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved240Twenty-four water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effects Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effect Criteria of 0.25 mg/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (USDOI, 1998).1.Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, Drop 8, Drop 6A, Drop 6, Drop 3, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Twenty-four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184682012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.One fish tissue sample exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Ruls criterion continuous concentration for protection of freshwater aquatic life. None of 81 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Ruls criterion maximum concentration for protection of freshwater aquatic life.None of 81 water samples exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. One of 9 fish tissue samples xeceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354822012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168283ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for arsenic is 33 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184682012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.One fish tissue sample exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Ruls criterion continuous concentration for protection of freshwater aquatic life. None of 81 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Ruls criterion maximum concentration for protection of freshwater aquatic life.None of 81 water samples exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. One of 9 fish tissue samples xeceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460682012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671275ArsenicCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Nine samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for arsenic in fish tissue is 0.0034 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. It is assumed that 10% of the total arsenic is present as inorganic arsenic. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at Drop 6A Holtville Drain - 723ARDP6A, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River/Brawley - 723ARBRAW]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184682012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.One fish tissue sample exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Ruls criterion continuous concentration for protection of freshwater aquatic life. None of 81 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Ruls criterion maximum concentration for protection of freshwater aquatic life.None of 81 water samples exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. One of 9 fish tissue samples xeceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51062010State Reviewed Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal130Thirteen sediment quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.Thirteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184682012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.One fish tissue sample exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Ruls criterion continuous concentration for protection of freshwater aquatic life. None of 81 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Ruls criterion maximum concentration for protection of freshwater aquatic life.None of 81 water samples exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. One of 9 fish tissue samples xeceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52522010State Reviewed ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved570Sixty-one samples were taken at 3 locations on the river. Four water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 57 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 9/1991. Of these total samples, none exceed the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) 340 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254580 located near the International Boundary, USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.Sixty-one samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 9/1991. Four samples were collected from 1978-1979, 37 samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 19 samples were collected from 1990-1991. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184682012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.One fish tissue sample exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Ruls criterion continuous concentration for protection of freshwater aquatic life. None of 81 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Ruls criterion maximum concentration for protection of freshwater aquatic life.None of 81 water samples exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. One of 9 fish tissue samples xeceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52732010State Reviewed ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved570Sixty-one water samples were taken at 3 locations on the river. Four water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 57 acceptable water quality samples were collected from 6/1978 through 9/1991. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effects Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effects Criteria of 0.25 mg/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (USDOI, 1998).1.Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, USGS Station No.10254580 located near the International Boundary, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.Sixty-one samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 9/1991. Four samples were collected from 1978-1979, 50 samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 7 samples were collected from 1990-1991. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184682012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.One fish tissue sample exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Ruls criterion continuous concentration for protection of freshwater aquatic life. None of 81 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Ruls criterion maximum concentration for protection of freshwater aquatic life.None of 81 water samples exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. One of 9 fish tissue samples xeceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52902010State Reviewed ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the river, collected on 10/23/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 33 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following Alamo River location: USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.One sample was collected on 10/23/2001. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184682012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.One fish tissue sample exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Ruls criterion continuous concentration for protection of freshwater aquatic life. None of 81 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Ruls criterion maximum concentration for protection of freshwater aquatic life.None of 81 water samples exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. One of 9 fish tissue samples xeceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   28922006State Reviewed ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone70Data were collected by the RWQCB on 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. Of the 7 samples, all samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of the criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUSEPA: freshwater acute maximum = 340 ppb. USEPA: freshwater chronic maximum = 150 ppb.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: AR-B (at the International Boundary), AR-D10 (Lower Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #10), AR-D8 (Central Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #8), AR-D6A (Holtville Main Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6A), AR-D6 (Rose Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6), AR-D3 (Central Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #3), and at AR-GRB.All samples were collected on 6/21/2001. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184682012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.One fish tissue sample exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Ruls criterion continuous concentration for protection of freshwater aquatic life. None of 81 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Ruls criterion maximum concentration for protection of freshwater aquatic life.None of 81 water samples exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. One of 9 fish tissue samples xeceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352202012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167576ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe dissolved arsenic criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for dissolved arsenic is 0.150 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184682012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.One fish tissue sample exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Ruls criterion continuous concentration for protection of freshwater aquatic life. None of 81 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Ruls criterion maximum concentration for protection of freshwater aquatic life.None of 81 water samples exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. One of 9 fish tissue samples xeceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351972012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167570ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for arsenic is 33 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184682012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.One fish tissue sample exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Ruls criterion continuous concentration for protection of freshwater aquatic life. None of 81 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Ruls criterion maximum concentration for protection of freshwater aquatic life.None of 81 water samples exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. One of 9 fish tissue samples xeceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   53842010State Reviewed ArsenicCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal91Twenty-one fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fourteen fish fillet and 2 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the samples were not analyzed for the analyte. The 7 fish fillet samples and 2 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 10/1994 through 11/2000 at four locations. Of these total samples, 1 whole fish sample collected at 1 location exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value. At the Calipatria location an exceedance was found in 1 red swamp crayfish whole fish composite sample collected on 5/08/1980 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 1 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Seven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-82, 1987-88, 1990, (2)1993. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1994, and 2000. Ten channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-82, 1987, 1993, 1996-98. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1994. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Four whole fish composite samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia, mosquitofish, and red shiner were collected. One red swamp crayfish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1980. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One red shiner whole fish composite was collected in the year 1985. An exceedance was found in a sample collected on 5/08/1980. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304872012Atrazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352462012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167585AtrazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Atrazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Atrazine is 43 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295582012Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | Secbumeton Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29827 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Prometon is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356852012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168093Prometon (Prometone)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Prometon.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon is 98 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295582012Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | Secbumeton Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29827 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Prometon is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   298272010State Reviewed Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | SecbumetonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved8 Eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Atroton, Prometon, or Secbumeton for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were not collected in 11/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295032012Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29820 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Azinphos-methyl is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twelve water samples were collected for Azinphos-methyl, but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Because of non-acceptable samples, staff cannot make a decision for this pollutant if water quality objective is met.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   298202010State Reviewed Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Azinphos, methyl, or Azinphos, ethyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295032012Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29820 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Azinphos-methyl is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twelve water samples were collected for Azinphos-methyl, but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Because of non-acceptable samples, staff cannot make a decision for this pollutant if water quality objective is met.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352882012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167595Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twelve samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Azinphos Methyl (Guthion) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is a maximum of 0.01 ug/l.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial213962012Benzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50152010State Reviewed Benzene | Carbon tetrachlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, and 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial213962012Benzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353522012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167609BenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Benzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Benzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 71 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216642012Benzo(a)anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 5017 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size to determine if the water quality standards are met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline used to interpret the water quality objective. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353292012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167603Benzo(a)anthraceneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Benz(a)anthracene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Benzo(a)anthracene is 1050 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216642012Benzo(a)anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 5017 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size to determine if the water quality standards are met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline used to interpret the water quality objective. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51052010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Naphthalene | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216642012Benzo(a)anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 5017 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size to determine if the water quality standards are met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline used to interpret the water quality objective. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50172010State Reviewed 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Twelve water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Twelve water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial215622012Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 5017 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size to determine if water quality standards are met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines used to interpret the water quality objective. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   349962012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167619Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Benzo(a)pyrene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Benzo(a)Pyrene is 1450 ug/Kg dry weight (Macdonald et al. 2000)1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial215622012Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 5017 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size to determine if water quality standards are met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines used to interpret the water quality objective. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49602010State Reviewed Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) of 1450 ug/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from the Garst Road bridge.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, usually in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial215622012Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 5017 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size to determine if water quality standards are met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines used to interpret the water quality objective. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50172010State Reviewed 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Twelve water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Twelve water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial300122012Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | Terbufos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, and Terbufos consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300122010State Reviewed Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | BiphenylWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial300122012Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | Terbufos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, and Terbufos consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298252010State Reviewed Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | TerbufosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216652012Benzo[b]fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, the use rating is changed from fully supproting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size to determine if the water standards are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50172010State Reviewed 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Twelve water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Twelve water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial293472012Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, and Benzo(k)Fluoranthene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300162010State Reviewed Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluorantheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial215192012Benzo[k]fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, the use rating is changed from fully supporting to insufficient inforamtion due to insufficient sample size to determine if the water quality standards are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50172010State Reviewed 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Twelve water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Twelve water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304762012Bifenthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 11 samples exceeded the median lethal concentration for bifenthrin and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   339322012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25798BifenthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one non-detect sample collected for bifenthrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.43 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The guideline 0.43 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 2.Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396.Data were collected at the following station: 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet).The sample was collected on 10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304762012Bifenthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 11 samples exceeded the median lethal concentration for bifenthrin and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354212012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168192BifenthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.43 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.43 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 2.Quality Assurance Project Plan for Biological and Surface Water Sampling to Lower Santa Margarita River Watershed Monitoring Program.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304762012Bifenthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 11 samples exceeded the median lethal concentration for bifenthrin and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463312012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000000BifenthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin. Twelve sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0006 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of bifenthrin does not exceed 0.0006 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.004 ug/L. Mixtures of bifenthrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295372012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   298232010State Reviewed Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | OxadiazonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295372012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460512012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671296MirexCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Mirex. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, Tilapia spp. and flathead catfish. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for Tilapia spp. and flathead catfish. Nine samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in fish tissue is 0.28 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at Drop 6A Holtville Drain - 723ARDP6A, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River/Brawley - 723ARBRAW]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295372012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   300092010State Reviewed Dacthal | Mirex | OxadiazonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Dacthal, Mirex, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295372012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352382012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167738DichlorvosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Dichlorvos.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Dichlorvos is 7.2 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295372012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353412012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167715DacthalWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Dacthal.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal 6600 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295372012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353492012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167771DimethoateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Dimethoate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dimethoate is 43 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295372012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355732012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168018MirexWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twelve samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The criterion continuous concentration for Mirex is 0.001 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216142012Bromoform Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50132010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216142012Bromoform Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352022012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167627BromoformCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Bromoform.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Bromoform criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 360 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184422012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNYYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of evidence No. 2893 was brought forward from 2006, and states Poor QA for the reason for Insufficient Information. Line of Evidence No. 2893 will not be included in the Final Use Rating. LOE No. 5486 & 46077 received a use rating of insufficient information due to not enough sample size to determine if water quality standards are met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy 3. None of the 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   28932006State ReviewedNJK: Insufficient information for 305(b) because the detection limit is below the criteria for all samplesCadmiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone70Data were collected by the RWQCB on 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. All samples were non-detects, with a detection limit of 10 ppb. In comparison to the hardness-based criterion (using the hardness measurements collected with each sample), there were no exceedances because the detection limit is below the criteria for all samples (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCTR: freshwater acute maximum hardness dependent. CTR: freshwater chronic maximum hardness dependent.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: AR-B (at the International Boundary), AR-D10 (Lower Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #10), AR-D8 (Central Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #8), AR-D6A (Holtville Main Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6A), AR-D6 (Rose Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6), AR-D3 (Central Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #3), and at AR-GRB.All samples were collected on 6/21/2001. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184422012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNYYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of evidence No. 2893 was brought forward from 2006, and states Poor QA for the reason for Insufficient Information. Line of Evidence No. 2893 will not be included in the Final Use Rating. LOE No. 5486 & 46077 received a use rating of insufficient information due to not enough sample size to determine if water quality standards are met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy 3. None of the 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50042010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved240Twenty-four water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, Drop 8, Drop 6A, Drop 6, Drop 3, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Twenty-four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184422012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNYYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of evidence No. 2893 was brought forward from 2006, and states Poor QA for the reason for Insufficient Information. Line of Evidence No. 2893 will not be included in the Final Use Rating. LOE No. 5486 & 46077 received a use rating of insufficient information due to not enough sample size to determine if water quality standards are met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy 3. None of the 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51062010State Reviewed Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal130Thirteen sediment quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.Thirteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184422012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNYYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of evidence No. 2893 was brought forward from 2006, and states Poor QA for the reason for Insufficient Information. Line of Evidence No. 2893 will not be included in the Final Use Rating. LOE No. 5486 & 46077 received a use rating of insufficient information due to not enough sample size to determine if water quality standards are met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy 3. None of the 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52912010State Reviewed CadmiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the river, collected on 10/23/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 4.98 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following Alamo River location: USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.One sample was collected on 10/23/2001. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184422012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNYYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of evidence No. 2893 was brought forward from 2006, and states Poor QA for the reason for Insufficient Information. Line of Evidence No. 2893 will not be included in the Final Use Rating. LOE No. 5486 & 46077 received a use rating of insufficient information due to not enough sample size to determine if water quality standards are met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy 3. None of the 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54862010State Reviewed CadmiumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal90Twenty-one fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fourteen fish fillet and 2 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the samples were not analyzed for the analyte. The 7 fish fillet samples and 2 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000 at four locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 3 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Seven carp fillet composite samples were collected in 1981-82, 1987-88, 1990, (2)1993. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in 1994, and 2000. Ten channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in 1978-82, 1987, 1993, 1996-98. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in 1994. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Four whole fish composite samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia, mosquitofish, and red shiner were collected. One red swamp crayfish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1980. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One red shiner whole fish composite was collected in the year 1985. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184422012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNYYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of evidence No. 2893 was brought forward from 2006, and states Poor QA for the reason for Insufficient Information. Line of Evidence No. 2893 will not be included in the Final Use Rating. LOE No. 5486 & 46077 received a use rating of insufficient information due to not enough sample size to determine if water quality standards are met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy 3. None of the 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328312012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21887CadmiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved120None of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for cadmium.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet) and 723ARINTL (Alamo River at International Boundary).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184422012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNYYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of evidence No. 2893 was brought forward from 2006, and states Poor QA for the reason for Insufficient Information. Line of Evidence No. 2893 will not be included in the Final Use Rating. LOE No. 5486 & 46077 received a use rating of insufficient information due to not enough sample size to determine if water quality standards are met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy 3. None of the 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352472012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167640CadmiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for cadmium is 4.98 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184422012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNYYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of evidence No. 2893 was brought forward from 2006, and states Poor QA for the reason for Insufficient Information. Line of Evidence No. 2893 will not be included in the Final Use Rating. LOE No. 5486 & 46077 received a use rating of insufficient information due to not enough sample size to determine if water quality standards are met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy 3. None of the 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354852012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168286CadmiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for cadmium is 4.98 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184422012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNYYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of evidence No. 2893 was brought forward from 2006, and states Poor QA for the reason for Insufficient Information. Line of Evidence No. 2893 will not be included in the Final Use Rating. LOE No. 5486 & 46077 received a use rating of insufficient information due to not enough sample size to determine if water quality standards are met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy 3. None of the 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460772012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671276CadmiumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for cadmium in fish tissue is 2.2 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at Drop 6A Holtville Drain - 723ARDP6A, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River/Brawley - 723ARBRAW]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial293572012Carbon (organic) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess organic Carbon consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300242010State Reviewed Carbon (organic)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216252012Carbon tetrachloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 18 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50152010State Reviewed Benzene | Carbon tetrachlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, and 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216252012Carbon tetrachloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 18 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352692012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167646Carbon tetrachlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Carbon tetrachloride.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Carbon tetrachloride criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 4.4 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295012012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 29818 and 30005 received a use rating of insufficient information in previous assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for those pollutants lsited in these LOEs. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion, none of nine sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) for Methyl Parathion. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355372012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168060ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twelve samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The criterion continuous concentration for Parathion, Ethyl is 0.013 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295012012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 29818 and 30005 received a use rating of insufficient information in previous assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for those pollutants lsited in these LOEs. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion, none of nine sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) for Methyl Parathion. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   359772012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168328Methyl ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for methyl parathion is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 6 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 6 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for methyl parathion from Ding et al. (2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295012012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 29818 and 30005 received a use rating of insufficient information in previous assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for those pollutants lsited in these LOEs. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion, none of nine sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) for Methyl Parathion. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354792012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168245Methyl ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for methyl parathion is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 6 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 6 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for methyl parathion from Ding et al. (2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295012012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 29818 and 30005 received a use rating of insufficient information in previous assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for those pollutants lsited in these LOEs. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion, none of nine sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) for Methyl Parathion. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   300052010State Reviewed Methyl Parathion | ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295012012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 29818 and 30005 received a use rating of insufficient information in previous assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for those pollutants lsited in these LOEs. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion, none of nine sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) for Methyl Parathion. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   298182010State Reviewed Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | TokuthionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295012012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 29818 and 30005 received a use rating of insufficient information in previous assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for those pollutants lsited in these LOEs. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion, none of nine sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) for Methyl Parathion. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355782012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168068Methyl ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion is 0.08 ug/L.1.Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Methyl to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River SystemData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295452012Chlorfenvinphos | Chlorpyrifos, methyl | Cuomaphos | Dicrotophos | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | Fenchlorphos | Leptophos | Merphos | Mevinphos | Tetrachlorvinphos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, and Chlorpyrifos Methyl consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298212010State Reviewed Chlorfenvinphos | Chlorpyrifos, methyl | Cuomaphos | Dicrotophos | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | Fenchlorphos | Leptophos | Merphos | Mevinphos | TetrachlorvinphosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216262012Chlorobenzene (mono) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352942012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167655Chlorobenzene (mono)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Chlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 21,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216262012Chlorobenzene (mono) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50132010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial224262012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 25 sediment samples exceeded the Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms, and none of water samples exceed the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354982012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168289ChromiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chromium.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for chromium is 111 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial224262012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 25 sediment samples exceeded the Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms, and none of water samples exceed the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352102012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167683ChromiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Chromium.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for chromium is 111 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial224262012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 25 sediment samples exceeded the Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms, and none of water samples exceed the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   340992012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25526ChromiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120None of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for chromium III or the criteria for chromium VI.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each chromium III sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. The criterion continuous concentration (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for chromium VI is 11 ug/L and is not hardness dependent.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet) and 723ARINTL (Alamo River at International Boundary).Samples collected between 10/25/05 and 10/28/08. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial224262012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 25 sediment samples exceeded the Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms, and none of water samples exceed the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52072010State Reviewed Chromium (total)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal11One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the river, collected on 10/23/2001. This sample exceeded the PEC. The exceedence was found in the sample collected from near Niland, CA (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 111 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Sample was collected at the following Alamo River location: USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.One samples was collected. A samples was collected on 10/23/2001. The exceedence was found in the sample collected on 10/23/2001. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial224262012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 25 sediment samples exceeded the Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms, and none of water samples exceed the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51062010State Reviewed Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal130Thirteen sediment quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.Thirteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial224262012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 25 sediment samples exceeded the Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms, and none of water samples exceed the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50032010State Reviewed Arsenic | Chromium (total)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved240Twenty-four water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 340 ug/l Arsenic, and 1724 ug/l Chromium (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, Drop 8, Drop 6A, Drop 6, Drop 3, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Twenty-four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial224262012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 25 sediment samples exceeded the Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms, and none of water samples exceed the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   28942006State Reviewed Chromium (total)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Data were collected by the RWQCB on 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. Of the 7 samples, all samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of the criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUSEPA: freshwater acute maximum = 1724 ppb. USEPA: freshwater chronic maximum = 565 ppb.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: AR-B (at the International Boundary), AR-D10 (Lower Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #10), AR-D8 (Central Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #8), AR-D6A (Holtville Main Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6A), AR-D6 (Rose Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6), AR-D3 (Central Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #3), and at AR-GRB.All samples were collected on 6/21/2001. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial224262012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 25 sediment samples exceeded the Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms, and none of water samples exceed the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52562010State Reviewed Chromium (total)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved440Fifty-two samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Eight water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 44 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 1/1980 through 9/1991. Of these total samples, none exceed the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) 1,724 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.Fifty-two samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 7/1979 through 9/1991. Two samples were collected in 1979, 43 samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 7 samples were collected from 1990-1991. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216702012Chrysene (C1-C4) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 5017 is changed from fully supporlting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328672012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21822Chrysene (C1-C4)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Zero of 8 samples collected for Chrysene (Sum of c0-c3) exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Chrysene in freshwater sediments is 1290 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216702012Chrysene (C1-C4) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 5017 is changed from fully supporlting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51052010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Naphthalene | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216702012Chrysene (C1-C4) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 5017 is changed from fully supporlting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50172010State Reviewed 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Twelve water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Twelve water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181502012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 43 water samples exceeded the CTR Hardness dependent criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352772012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167701CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Copper.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for copper is 149 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181502012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 43 water samples exceeded the CTR Hardness dependent criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355012012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168292CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Copper.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for copper is 149 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181502012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 43 water samples exceeded the CTR Hardness dependent criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328532012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21894Copper, DissolvedWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved120None of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for copper.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet) and 723ARINTL (Alamo River at International Boundary).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181502012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 43 water samples exceeded the CTR Hardness dependent criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52932010State Reviewed CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the river, collected on 10/23/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 149 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following Alamo River location: USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.One sample was collected on 10/23/2001. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181502012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 43 water samples exceeded the CTR Hardness dependent criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52742010State Reviewed CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved260Fifty-three water samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Twenty-seven water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 26 acceptable water quality samples were collected from 11/1978 through 6/1991. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effects Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effects Criteria of 15 mg/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (USDOI, 1998).1.Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.Fifty-three samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 11/1978 through 9/1991. Three samples were collected from 1978-1979, 43 samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 7 samples were collected from 1990-1991. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181502012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 43 water samples exceeded the CTR Hardness dependent criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51062010State Reviewed Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal130Thirteen sediment quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.Thirteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181502012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 43 water samples exceeded the CTR Hardness dependent criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50202010State Reviewed CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved240Twenty-four water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effects Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effect Criteria of 15 mg/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (USDOI, 1998).1.Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, Drop 8, Drop 6A, Drop 6, Drop 3, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Twenty-four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181502012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 43 water samples exceeded the CTR Hardness dependent criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   48652010State Reviewed CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved241Twenty-four water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples , 1 exceeded the CTR Criteria. The exceedence was found in a sample collected on 11/04/2003 from the outlet to the Salton Sea location (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, Drop 8, Drop 6A, Drop 6, Drop 3, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road bridge.Twenty-four water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary, and Outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled twice in 2002. The exceedence was found in a sample collected on 11/04/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181502012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 43 water samples exceeded the CTR Hardness dependent criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   28952006State Reviewed CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone70Data were collected by the RWQCB on 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. Of the 7 samples, all samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of the criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCTR: freshwater acute maximum hardness dependent. CTR: freshwater chronic maximum hardness dependent.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: AR-B (at the International Boundary), AR-D10 (Lower Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #10), AR-D8 (Central Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #8), AR-D6A (Holtville Main Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6A), AR-D6 (Rose Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6), AR-D3 (Central Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #3), and at AR-GRB.All samples were collected on 6/21/2001. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304912012Cyanazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353002012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167707CyanazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Cyanazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Cyanazine is 4.8 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial212692012Cyanide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the seciton 303(d) list in ap revious assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, the use rating is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 4 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   52642010State Reviewed CyanideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Three water samples were taken at 1 location on the river. One water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 2 acceptable water quality samples were collected on 3/26/1979 through 5/30/1979. Neither sample exceed the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 220,000 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River location: USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.Three samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 9/1978 through 5/1979. One samples was collected in 1978, and 2 samples were collected in 1979. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial212692012Cyanide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the seciton 303(d) list in ap revious assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, the use rating is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 4 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51892010State Reviewed CyanideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal21Two water quality samples were taken at 1 location along the river on 3/26/1979 and 5/30/1979. Of these two samples, 1 exceeded the CTR Criteria. The exceedence was found in the sample collected on 5/30/1979 (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 22 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River location: USGS Station No. 10254730 located near Niland, Ca.Two samples were collected. Samples were collected on 3/26/1979 and 5/30/1979. The exceedence was found in the sample collected on 5/30/1979. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304892012Cyfluthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 11 sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354422012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168204CyfluthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cyfluthrin from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304892012Cyfluthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 11 sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463612012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000008CyfluthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total. Twelve sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.00005 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of cyfluthrin does not exceed 0.00005 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.0003 ug/L. Mixtures of cyfluthrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304892012Cyfluthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 11 sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   339332012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25799CyfluthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one non-detect sample collected for cyfluthrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg et al. 2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data were collected at the following station: 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet).The sample was collected on 10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304902012Cyhalothrin, Lambda Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 11 sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354582012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168210Cyhalothrin, LambdaWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.44 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.44 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for lambda-cyhalothrin from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304902012Cyhalothrin, Lambda Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 11 sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   339342012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25800Cyhalothrin, LambdaWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one non-detect sample collected for lambda-cyhalothrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.44 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg et al. 2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data were collected at the following station: 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet).The sample was collected on 10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304902012Cyhalothrin, Lambda Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 11 sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463232012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000016Cyhalothrin, LambdaWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, total. Twelve sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0005 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of lambda-cyhalothrin does not exceed 0.0005 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.001 ug/L. Mixtures of lambda-cyhalothrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304942012Cypermethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 11 sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline, and one of one water sample exceeded the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   339352012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25801CypermethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one non-detect sample collected for cypermethrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.3 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Maund et al. 2002).1.Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15Data were collected at the following station: 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet).The sample was collected on 10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304942012Cypermethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 11 sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline, and one of one water sample exceeded the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354742012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168216CypermethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal101Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.3 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.3 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cypermethrin from Maund et al. (2002).1.Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304942012Cypermethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 11 sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline, and one of one water sample exceeded the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463452012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000024CypermethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal11Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total. Eleven sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0002 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of cypermethrin does not exceed 0.0002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.001 ug/L. Mixtures of cypermethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304952012Deltamethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline, and none of 11 sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   339362012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25802DeltamethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one non-detect sample collected for deltamethrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.79 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg et al. 2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data were collected at the following station: 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet).The sample was collected on 10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304952012Deltamethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline, and none of 11 sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463252012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000032DeltamethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC) of 0.02 ug/L, which is the geometric mean of the LOEC and NOEC, as determined in a 280 day toxicity study with the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database)1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304952012Deltamethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline, and none of 11 sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354912012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168222DeltamethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.79 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.79 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for deltamethrin from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216812012Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, the use rating of this pollutant is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50172010State Reviewed 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Twelve water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Twelve water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295602012Dibenzothiophene | o-Xylene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Dibenzothiophene, and o-Xylene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene or the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene or the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300142010State Reviewed DibenzothiopheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295602012Dibenzothiophene | o-Xylene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Dibenzothiophene, and o-Xylene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene or the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene or the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298312010State Reviewed Dibenzothiophene | o-XyleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved8 Eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 10/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 10/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216822012Dichlorobromomethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, the use rating of LOE No. 5013 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50132010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial215822012Dichloromethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, the use rating of LOE No. 5018 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of two samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50182010State Reviewed Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | Vinyl chlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water quality samples were collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these two samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 4000 ug/l Methyl Bromide, 1600 ug/l Dichloromethane, and 525 ug/l Vinyl Chloride (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial215252012Endosulfan sulfate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 91 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   48082010State Reviewed Endosulfan sulfateCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterNot Recorded650Sixty-five water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a month from 3/15/1993 through 1/24/1994 at 11 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, zero exceeded the CTR Criteria (CDPR, 2007).1.Data for pesticides in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Mar. 1993-Jun. 2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 240 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: at Outlet to the Salton Sea, Albright Road (Nectarine Drain Area), Shank Road (Magnolia Drain Area), downstream of Rose Drain, downstream of Holtville Main Drain, at the Harris Street Bridge, Worthington Road, Holtville WTP, Holtville, downstream of Verde Drain, and at the All American Canal intersection.The samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a month from 3/15/1993 through 1/24/1994. Investigators used UCD ATL methods for sample collection, and USEPA methods for analysis. Lab analysis was done by the Dept. of Pesticide, Eureka Laboratories, and Agriculture and Priority Pollutants Laboratories (APPL). QA/QC is described in DiGiorgio, 1994.1."Colorado River Basin Toxicity Report, Draft Final, March 1993 through February 1994” prepared for V. de Vlaming and G. Starrett, SWRCB; prepared by, UC Davis Dept of Medicine and Epidemiology. Sacramento, CA. Interagency Agreement No. 0-149-250-0.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial215252012Endosulfan sulfate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 91 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50132010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial215252012Endosulfan sulfate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 91 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350482012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167815Endosulfan sulfateCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan sulfate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan Sulfate criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial293482012Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, and Endosulfan Sulfate consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, and Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300172010State Reviewed Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184672012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Fourteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 40 fish tissue sample exceeded the National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350572012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167824EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184672012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Fourteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 40 fish tissue sample exceeded the National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350672012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167836EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.036 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184672012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Fourteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 40 fish tissue sample exceeded the National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350682012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167837EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for sum of endrin is 207 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184672012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Fourteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 40 fish tissue sample exceeded the National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355172012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168298EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for endrin is 207 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184672012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Fourteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 40 fish tissue sample exceeded the National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460242012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671287EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at Drop 6A Holtville Drain - 723ARDP6A, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River/Brawley - 723ARBRAW]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184672012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Fourteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 40 fish tissue sample exceeded the National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460252012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671288EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at Drop 6A Holtville Drain - 723ARDP6A, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River/Brawley - 723ARBRAW]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184672012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Fourteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 40 fish tissue sample exceeded the National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56102010State Reviewed EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal351Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fish samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 1 fish fillet sample exceeded the NAS tissue guideline at 1 location. At the Calipatria location an exceedance was found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/08/1980 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. An exceedance was found in a sample collected on 5/08/1980. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184672012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Fourteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 40 fish tissue sample exceeded the National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54712010State Reviewed EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal350Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fish samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 1000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184672012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Fourteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 40 fish tissue sample exceeded the National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52652010State Reviewed EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal360Eighty-seven samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Fifty-one water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 36 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Of these total samples, none exceed the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.81 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.Eighty-seven samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Eight samples were collected in 1969, 78 samples were collected from 1970-1979, 0 samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 1 sample was collected from 1990-1992. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184672012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Fourteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 40 fish tissue sample exceeded the National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51052010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Naphthalene | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184672012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Fourteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 40 fish tissue sample exceeded the National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52582010State Reviewed EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal360Eighty-seven samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Fifty-one water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 36 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Of these total samples, none exceed the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) 0.086 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.Eighty-seven samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Eight samples were collected in 1969, 78 samples were collected from 1970-1979, 0 samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 1 sample was collected from 1990-1992. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184672012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Fourteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 40 fish tissue sample exceeded the National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   28862006State Reviewed EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone140Data were collected by the RWQCB on 4/15/2003 and 6/21/01 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. Of the 14 samples, all samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of the criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCTR: freshwater chronic maximum = 0.036 ppb. CTR: freshwater acute maximum = 0.086 ppb.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: AR-B (at the International Boundary), AR-D10 (Lower Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #10), AR-D8 (Central Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #8), AR-D6A (Holtville Main Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6A), AR-D6 (Rose Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6), AR-D3 (Central Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #3), and at AR-GRB.All samples were collected on 4/15/2003 and 6/21/01. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and North Coast Labs. A Quality Assurance Manual was provided. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184672012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Fourteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 40 fish tissue sample exceeded the National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50062010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184672012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Fourteen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 40 fish tissue sample exceeded the National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50142010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304962012Endrin aldehyde Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350802012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167849Endrin aldehydeCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin Aldehyde.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endrin Aldehyde criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304972012Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline, none of 11 sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463462012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000040Esfenvalerate/FenvalerateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.13 ug/L, as determined in a 96 hour toxicity test using the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database)1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304972012Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline, none of 11 sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   359402012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168322Esfenvalerate/FenvalerateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.5 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.5 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304972012Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline, none of 11 sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354482012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168234Esfenvalerate/FenvalerateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.5 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.5 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial214912012Ethion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for palcement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   54722010State Reviewed EthionCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal350Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fish samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 2000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial215362012Ethylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350992012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167856EthylbenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Ethylbenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Ethylbenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 29,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial215362012Ethylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50142010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial305032012Fecal Coliform Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Six of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 42 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   316732012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 15467Fecal ColiformWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNone426Six of the forty two samples exceeded the fecal coliform objective.1.Data for bacteria and temperature in Alamo River, New River (Imperial County), and Tijuana River, Jan 2006-Mar. 2010Not SpecifiedThe Fecal Coliform concentration shall not exceed more than 400/100 ml. Basin Plan for the Colorado River Basin.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  The samples were collected in Alamo River at the international boundary.The samples were collected between January 2006 to March 2010. CAR7231000019990205093023 The samples were collected under the USIBWC Collection and Field Analysis of Water Quality Samples document. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304982012Fenpropathrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline of median lethal concentration (LC50), and none of six sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline of median lethal concentration (LC50). This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354512012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168237FenpropathrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for fenpropathrin from Ding et al. ( 2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/23/2007-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304982012Fenpropathrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline of median lethal concentration (LC50), and none of six sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline of median lethal concentration (LC50). This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   339372012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25803FenpropathrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one non-detect sample collected for fenpropathrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Ding et al. 2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data were collected at the following station: 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet).The sample was collected on 10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304982012Fenpropathrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline of median lethal concentration (LC50), and none of six sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline of median lethal concentration (LC50). This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   359592012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168325FenpropathrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for fenpropathrin from Ding et al. ( 2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304982012Fenpropathrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline of median lethal concentration (LC50), and none of six sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline of median lethal concentration (LC50). This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463682012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000048FenpropathrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin, 2.2 ug/L, is the median lethal concentration (LC50) as determined in a 96 hour toxicity test using the bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database)1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/23/2007-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial183822012Fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 5014 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standard is met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51052010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Naphthalene | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial183822012Fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 5014 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standard is met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50142010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial183822012Fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 5014 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standard is met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354372012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168258FluorantheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Fluoranthene (sum of Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene/Pyrenes, C1-).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for fluoranthene is 2230 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial212812012Fluorene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 5014 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient inforamtion due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standard is met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51052010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Naphthalene | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial212812012Fluorene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 5014 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient inforamtion due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standard is met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50142010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial212812012Fluorene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 5014 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient inforamtion due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standard is met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329822012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21859FluoreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Zero of 8 samples collected for fluorene (Sum of c0-c3) exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for fluorene in freshwater sediments is 536 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181422012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline, and none of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460342012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671291HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at Drop 6A Holtville Drain - 723ARDP6A, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River/Brawley - 723ARBRAW]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181422012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline, and none of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351442012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167908HeptachlorCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twelve samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00021 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181422012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline, and none of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350942012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167919HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181422012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline, and none of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56202010State Reviewed HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal350Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fish samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181422012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline, and none of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50062010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181422012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline, and none of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   28972006State ReviewedNJK: This is potentially insufficient information for 305b, since the detection limits are above the chronic maximum.HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone140Data were collected by the RWQCB on 4/15/2003 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. All samples were non-detects, with a detection limit of 0.010 ppb. Samples were also collected on 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations. All samples were non-detects with a detection limit of 0.1 ppb (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCTR: freshwater chronic maximum = 0.0038 ppb and freshwater acute maximum = 0.52 ppb.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: AR-B (at the International Boundary), AR-D10 (Lower Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #10), AR-D8 (Central Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #8), AR-D6A (Holtville Main Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6A), AR-D6 (Rose Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6), AR-D3 (Central Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #3), and at AR-GRB.All samples were collected on 4/15/2003 and 6/21/2001. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and North Coast Labs. A Quality Assurance Manual was provided. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184362012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline, and none of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460412012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671292Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Nine samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in fish tissue is 0.93 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking WaterData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at Drop 6A Holtville Drain - 723ARDP6A, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River/Brawley - 723ARBRAW]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184362012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline, and none of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460422012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671293Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at Drop 6A Holtville Drain - 723ARDP6A, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River/Brawley - 723ARBRAW]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184362012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline, and none of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351462012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167937Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor Epoxide criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184362012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline, and none of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351132012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167926Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twelve samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor Epoxide criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00011 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184362012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline, and none of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56282010State Reviewed Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal350Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fish samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the years 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184362012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline, and none of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   53802010State Reviewed Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal30Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Twenty-eight fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples could not be used in the assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentrations. The 2 fish fillet samples and 1 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 11/1998 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 4 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184362012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline, and none of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50062010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184362012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline, and none of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   28872006State Reviewed Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone140Data were collected by the RWQCB on 4/15/2003 and 6/21/01 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. Of the 14 samples, all samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of the criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCTR: freshwater acute maximum = 0.52 ppb. CTR: freshwater chronic maximum = 0.0038 ppb.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: AR-B (at the International Boundary), AR-D10 (Lower Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #10), AR-D8 (Central Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #8), AR-D6A (Holtville Main Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6A), AR-D6 (Rose Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6), AR-D3 (Central Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #3), and at AR-GRB.All samples were collected on 4/15/2003 and 6/21/01. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and North Coast Labs. A Quality Assurance Manual was provided. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial300872012Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the sectin 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Heptachlor, and Heptachlor Epoxide consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6.No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300182010State Reviewed Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial214052012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460432012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671294Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobenzene. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue is 2.8 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at Drop 6A Holtville Drain - 723ARDP6A, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River/Brawley - 723ARBRAW]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial214052012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351652012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167944Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twelve samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Hexachlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00077 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial214052012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54732010State Reviewed Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal350Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fish samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 20 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial293422012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Methoxychlor | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, and Methoxychlor consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300212010State Reviewed Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Methoxychlor | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial214892012Hexachlorobutadiene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355252012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167953HexachlorobutadieneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobutadiene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Hexachlorobutadiene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 50 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial214892012Hexachlorobutadiene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50142010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial214902012Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One fish tissue sample exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 35 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.Af  67432010State Reviewed Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (mixture)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal351Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fish samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 1 fish fillet sample exceeded the NAS tissue guideline at 1 location. At the Calipatria location an exceedance was found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/08/1980 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. An exceedance was found in a sample collected on 5/08/1980. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295512012Hydroxide | Pheophytin a Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.7.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Hydroxide, and Pheophytin a consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.7.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Hydroxide, or Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Hydroxide, or Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298342010State Reviewed Hydroxide | Pheophytin aWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved7 Seven water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at seven locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for Hydroxide, or Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, Drop 8, Drop 6A, Drop 6, Drop 3, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at all seven locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial214062012Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for palcement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. The use rating of the LOE No. 5017 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50172010State Reviewed 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Twelve water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Twelve water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial192662012Indicator Bacteria Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, the use rating of the LOE No. 2911 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.3 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of seven samples exceeded the Basin Plan E. coli water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   29112006State Reviewed Indicator BacteriaWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal72Numeric data of bacteria counts generated from seven sample dates (some dates had multiple samples that were averaged as described in the Listing Policy section 6.1.5.6). Two of the samples exceeded the water quality objective (CRBRWQCB, 2004f).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedBasin Plan: E. coli: Any sample shall not exceed the following maximum allowables: E. coli -- 400 per 100 ml.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Two stations were sampled, each was situated along the Alamo River downstream of the international boundary with Mexico and upstream of the outlet (mouth) of Alamo River into the Salton Sea.Samples taken during the spring (May) and the fall (October) of 2002 and April 2003.The Alamo River flows from Mexico through the Imperial Valley in the Salton Sea. Most of the water flowing through it comes from agricultural return flows.SWAMP QAPP. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial182812012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 24 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   28982006State Reviewed LeadWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone70Data were collected by the RWQCB on 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. Of the 7 samples, all samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of the criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCTR: freshwater acute maximum hardness dependent. CTR: freshwater chronic maximum hardness dependent.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: AR-B (at the International Boundary), AR-D10 (Lower Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #10), AR-D8 (Central Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #8), AR-D6A (Holtville Main Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6A), AR-D6 (Rose Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6), AR-D3 (Central Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #3), and at AR-GRB.All samples were collected on 6/21/2001. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial182812012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 24 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50042010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved240Twenty-four water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, Drop 8, Drop 6A, Drop 6, Drop 3, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Twenty-four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial182812012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 24 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51062010State Reviewed Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal130Thirteen sediment quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.Thirteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial182812012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 24 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   358692012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168304LeadWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Lead.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for lead is 128 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial182812012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 24 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329012012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21919LeadWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved120None of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for lead.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet), and 723ARINTL (Alamo River at International Boundary).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial182812012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 24 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355672012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167963LeadWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Lead.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for lead is 128 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial182812012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 24 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52942010State Reviewed LeadWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the river, collected on 10/23/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 128 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following Alamo River location: USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.One sample was collected on 10/23/2001. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216932012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, none of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline, and none of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   358662012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168301Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Lindane (gamma-HCH) is 4.99 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216932012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, none of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline, and none of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460322012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671289Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in fish tissue is 4.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at Drop 6A Holtville Drain - 723ARDP6A, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River/Brawley - 723ARBRAW]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216932012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, none of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline, and none of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460332012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671290Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. Nine composites were generated from three species: channel catfish, flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for flathead catfish and Tilapia spp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Alamo River at Drop 6A Holtville Drain - 723ARDP6A, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River/Brawley - 723ARBRAW]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216932012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, none of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline, and none of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51052010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Naphthalene | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216932012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, none of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline, and none of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54742010State Reviewed Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal350Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fish samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 30 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216932012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, none of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline, and none of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   67372010State Reviewed Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal350Thirty fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 4 locations in the river. Fish samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, near Holtville, CA, near Brawley, CA, and near Caliptaria, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty fish filet samples of channel catfish, carp, largemouth bass, and spiny soft shelled turtle were collected. Thirteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1985, 1987,1993, and 1996-98. Two channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, and 1994. Eleven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-85, (2)1988, 1990, (2)1993, and 2000. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, and 1994. One largemouth bass single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1985. One spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Five whole fish composites of red swamp crayfish, redshiner, mosquito fish and tilapia were collected. Two red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1979-1980. One redshiner whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216932012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, none of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline, and none of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351062012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167895Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe gamma-BHC (Lindane) criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.95 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216932012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, none of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline, and none of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351072012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167896Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Lindane (gamma-HCH) is 4.99 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216932012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, none of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline, and none of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351742012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167883Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe HCH, Gamma (Lindane) criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of organisms is 0.063 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304782012Methidathion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. Line of Evidence No. 29818 received Use Rating of Insufficient Information in previous assessment cycle, because no evalaution guideline was available. However, an evaluation guideline for Methidathoin is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 samples exceeded the USEPA aquatic life maximum acceptable toxicant concentration level for Methidathion and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353572012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167997MethidathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Methidathion.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion is 0.86 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304782012Methidathion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. Line of Evidence No. 29818 received Use Rating of Insufficient Information in previous assessment cycle, because no evalaution guideline was available. However, an evaluation guideline for Methidathoin is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 samples exceeded the USEPA aquatic life maximum acceptable toxicant concentration level for Methidathion and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   298182010State Reviewed Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | TokuthionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304992012Methoxychlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Methoxychlor and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355712012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168015MethoxychlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Methoxychlor.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The criterion continuous concentration for Methoxychlor is 0.3 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial213232012Methyl bromide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, the use rating is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met.Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50182010State Reviewed Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | Vinyl chlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water quality samples were collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these two samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 4000 ug/l Methyl Bromide, 1600 ug/l Dichloromethane, and 525 ug/l Vinyl Chloride (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial320962012Molinate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355952012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168025MolinateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Molinate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Molinate is 0.6 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial213242012Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51052010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Naphthalene | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial213242012Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   325622012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21865NaphthaleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Zero of 8 samples collected for naphthalene (Sum of c0-c4) exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for naphthalene in freshwater sediments is 561 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL, Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial183972012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 26 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 79 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51062010State Reviewed Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal130Thirteen sediment quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.Thirteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial183972012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 26 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 79 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   29002006State Reviewed NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone70Data were collected by the RWQCB on 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. Of the 7 samples, all samples were non-detects and did not exceed the criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCTR: freshwater acute and chronic maximum hardness dependent.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: AR-B (at the International Boundary), AR-D10 (Lower Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #10), AR-D8 (Central Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #8), AR-D6A (Holtville Main Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6A), AR-D6 (Rose Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6), AR-D3 (Central Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #3), and at AR-GRB.All samples were collected on 6/21/2001. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial183972012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 26 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 79 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50042010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved240Twenty-four water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, Drop 8, Drop 6A, Drop 6, Drop 3, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Twenty-four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial183972012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 26 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 79 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50082010State Reviewed Mercury | NickelCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved240Twenty-four water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.051 ug/l Mercury, and 4600 ug/l Nickel (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, Drop 8, Drop 6A, Drop 6, Drop 3, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Twenty-four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial183972012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 26 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 79 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   358952012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168310NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for nickel is 48.6 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial183972012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 26 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 79 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52082010State Reviewed NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal11One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the river, collected on 10/23/2001. This sample exceeded the PEC. The exceedence was found in the sample collected from near Niland, CA (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 48.6 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Sample was collected at the following Alamo River location: USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.One samples was collected. A samples was collected on 10/23/2001. One sample was collected from 2000-present. The exceedence was found in the sample collected on 10/23/2001. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial183972012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 26 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 79 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52662010State Reviewed NickelCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved430Sixty-five water samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Twenty-two water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 43 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 11/1978 through 4/1994. Of these total samples, none exceed the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 4,600 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.Sixty-five samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 11/1978 through 4/1994. Two samples were collected from 1978-1979, 46 samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 17 sample was collected from 1990-1994. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial183972012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 26 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 79 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329232012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21927NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved120None of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for nickel.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet) and 723ARINTL (Alamo River at International Boundary).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial183972012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 26 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 79 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356582012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168037NickelCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Nickel criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 4,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial183972012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 26 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 79 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356832012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168047NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for nickel is 48.6 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial305002012Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.One of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of six samples exceeded the USEPA criteria for ammonia and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   345692012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 26201Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal611 of the 6 samples exceed the water USEPA Temperature and pH-Dependent values of the CCC (Chronic Criterion) for Fish Early Life Stages Present for ammonia.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGWater Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin Region (RWQCB 2006): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There is no water quality objective for ammonia in the Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin. Instead, the USEPA criteria for ammonia was used as Temperature and pH-Dependent Values of the CCC (Chronic Criterion)for Fish Early Life Stages Present.1.1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia  Sample was collected at 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet).Samples collected between 10/26/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295382012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 30011 and 29824 was received the use rating of insufficient information during last asssessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for those pollutants. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for phosmet and phorate and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11] of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   300112010State Reviewed Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | TedionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, or Tedion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295382012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 30011 and 29824 was received the use rating of insufficient information during last asssessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for those pollutants. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for phosmet and phorate and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11] of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356422012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168085PhosmetWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Phosmet.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet is 5.6 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295382012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 30011 and 29824 was received the use rating of insufficient information during last asssessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for those pollutants. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for phosmet and phorate and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11] of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356172012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168077PhorateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Phorate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Phorate is 2 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295382012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 30011 and 29824 was received the use rating of insufficient information during last asssessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for those pollutants. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for phosmet and phorate and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11] of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   298242010State Reviewed Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | TrichloronateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181832012Oxygen, Dissolved Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Nine of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Nine of 166 samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   340332012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25942Oxygen, DissolvedWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone434There were 4 out of the 43 samples that had a DO level below 5.0 mg/L.1.Data for bacteria and temperature in Alamo River, New River (Imperial County), and Tijuana River, Jan 2006-Mar. 2010PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGFrom the Colorado River Water Quality Control Plan 'The dissolved Oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below the following minimum levels at any time: for waters designated as WARM-5.0 mg/L.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected in the Alamo River (at International Boundary).Samples were collected twice a month between 01/25/06 and 03/10/10. EnviroMatrix Analytical Inc. Quality Assurance Program Manual (Controlled Document Number EMA-100.8.0001)1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181832012Oxygen, Dissolved Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Nine of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Nine of 166 samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   322922012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21665Oxygen, DissolvedWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved61One of the six samples exceeded the water quality objective for dissolved oxygen.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGFrom the Colorado River Water Quality Control Plan 'The dissolved Oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below the following minimum levels at any time: for waters designated as WARM-5.0 mg/L.'1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  The samples were collected at station 723ARINTL - Alamo River at International Boundary.The samples were collected during October 2005, May 2006, May and October 2007, April and October 2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181832012Oxygen, Dissolved Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Nine of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Nine of 166 samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   322912012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21662Oxygen, DissolvedWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved61One of the six samples exceeded the water quality objective for dissolved oxygen.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGFrom the Colorado River Water Quality Control Plan 'The dissolved Oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below the following minimum levels at any time: for waters designated as WARM-5.0 mg/L.'1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  The samples were collected at station 723ARGRB1 - Alamo River Outlet.The samples were collected during October 2005, May 2006, May and October 2007, April and October 2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181832012Oxygen, Dissolved Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Nine of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Nine of 166 samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   29082006State Reviewed Oxygen, DissolvedWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone152Fifteen samples were taken on the Alamo River from January 1997 to March 1998. There were 2 exceedances (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedColorado River RWQCB Basin Plan: The dissolved oxygen concentration for waters designated as warm freshwater habitat shall not be reduced below 5 mg/L.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Unknown.Samples were taken monthly from 1/28/97 through 3/17/98.The two exceedances were in July and August of 1997 when DO dropped below 5 mg/L.Imperial Irrigation District SOPs. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181832012Oxygen, Dissolved Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Nine of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Nine of 166 samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52372010State Reviewed Oxygen, DissolvedWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved961Ninety-six water quality measurements were taken at 2 locations in the river, collected between 4/1978 and 9/1994. Out of these total measurements, 1 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedence was found in a measurement collected on 7/24/1980 from near Niland, CA (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: The dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below the following minimum levels at any time: Water designated WARM 5 mg/l (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Measurements were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.Ninety-six measurements were collected. Measurements were generally collected from 4/78 through 9/94. Thirteen measurements were collected from 1978-1979, 65 measurements were collected from 1980-1989,and 18 measurements were collected from 1990-1994. The exceedence was found in a measurement collected on 7/24/1980. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial305012012PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of eight sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354692012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168280PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for fluoranthene is 2230 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial305022012Permethrin, total Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Eight water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of 11 sediemnt samples exceeded the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464522012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000056Permethrin, totalWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total. Eight sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.002 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of permethrin does not exceed 0.002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.01 ug/L. Mixtures of permethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/23/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial305022012Permethrin, total Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Eight water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of 11 sediemnt samples exceeded the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354972012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168252Permethrin, totalWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 8.9 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for permethrin from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial305022012Permethrin, total Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Eight water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of 11 sediemnt samples exceeded the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   339382012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25804Permethrin, totalWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one non-detect sample collected for permethrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg et al. 2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data were collected at the following station: 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet).The sample was collected on 10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial213342012Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the Sediment Quality Guidelines and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328052012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21805PhenanthreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Zero of 8 samples collected for Phenanthrene (sum of c0-c4) exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Phenanthrene in freshwater sediments is 1170 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following stations: Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL, and Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial213342012Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the Sediment Quality Guidelines and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51052010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Naphthalene | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304842012PrometrynSource UnknownDo Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29826 was received use rating of insufficient information because no evaluation guideline was available during 2010 assessment cycle. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometryn, and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   298262010State Reviewed Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn | TerbutrynWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved8 Eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, or Terbutryn for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were not collected in 11/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304842012PrometrynSource UnknownDo Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29826 was received use rating of insufficient information because no evaluation guideline was available during 2010 assessment cycle. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometryn, and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353712012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168101PrometrynWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Prometryn.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometryn is 1 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial293402012Propazine | Terbuthylazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29828 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Propazine is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Propazine and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355612012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168109PropazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Propazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Propazine is 25 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial293402012Propazine | Terbuthylazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29828 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Propazine is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Propazine and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   298282010State Reviewed Propazine | TerbuthylazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved8 Eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Propazine, or Terbuthylazine for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were not collected in 11/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial213802012Pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 5014 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354532012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168265PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Pyrene (sum of Pyrene and Fluoranthene/Pyrenes, C1-).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for pyrene is 1520 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial213802012Pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 5014 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51052010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Naphthalene | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial213802012Pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 5014 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50142010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295522012Salinity Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Salinity consistent with Listing Policy section 3.2. No evaluation guideline for Salinity for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for Salinity for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298352010State Reviewed SalinityWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved7 Seven water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at three locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for Salinity for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 3, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed from in April and November of 2003, and May of 2004 at the International Boundary and at the outlet to the Salton Sea. A sample was collected from Drop 3 in May of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184742012Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 43 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50042010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved240Twenty-four water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, Drop 8, Drop 6A, Drop 6, Drop 3, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Twenty-four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184742012Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 43 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329432012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21934SilverWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved120None of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for silver.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion maximum concentrations (1-hour average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet) and 723ARINTL (Alamo River at International Boundary).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial184742012Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 43 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   29062006State Reviewed SilverWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone70Data were collected by the RWQCB on 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. Of the 7 samples, all samples were non-detects and did not exceed the criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2004C).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCTR: freshwater acute and chronic maximum hardness dependent.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: AR-B (at the International Boundary), AR-D10 (Lower Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #10), AR-D8 (Central Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #8), AR-D6A (Holtville Main Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6A), AR-D6 (Rose Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6), AR-D3 (Central Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #3), and at AR-GRB.All samples were collected on 6/21/2001. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial320972012Simazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 samples the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Simazine and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356032012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168120SimazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Simazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Simazine is 90 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295392012Streptococcus, fecal Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess fecal Streptococcus consistent with Listing Policy section 3.3. No evaluation guideline for the total density of fecal Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the total density of fecal Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298302010State Reviewed Streptococcus, fecalWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved13 Thirteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 4/2003 at seven locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, Drop 8, Drop 6A, Drop 6, Drop 3, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Thirteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed in May and October of 2002, and April of 2003 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. At Drop 10 and Drop 3 samples were colected in May and October of 2002 only. At Drop 8, and Drop 6A samples were collected in October of 2002 only. At Drop 6 a sample was collected in May of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial213862012Tetrachloroethylene/PCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356712012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168139Tetrachloroethylene/PCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Tetrachloroethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Tetrachloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 8.85 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial213862012Tetrachloroethylene/PCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50142010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial320982012Thiobencarb/Bolero Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 samples the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Thiobencarb/Bolero and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353792012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168148Thiobencarb/BoleroWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Thiobencarb.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Thiobencarb is 1.4 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet - 723ARGRB1, Alamo River at International Boundary - 723ARINTL]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial213872012Toluene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs are combined to determine a final use rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50142010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial213872012Toluene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs are combined to determine a final use rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353892012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168158TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Toluene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Toluene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 200,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial183882012Total Dissolved Solids Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 139 samples exceeded the water quality objectives and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   28792006State ReviewedLOEs 734 and 1861 are assessment from public solicitation data.Total Dissolved SolidsFreshwater Replenishment Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved1390On 6/21/2001 seven samples were collected by the RWQCB and there were no exceedances. The average of these values was calculated as well and there was not an exceedance. Additionally, samples were collected monthly by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) from 1998 through 2003. Samples were collected at 2 locations on the Alamo River. None of the 132 samples were in exceedance (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedColorado River RWQCB Basin Plan: Maximum = 4500 mg/L, and Annual Average = 4000 mg/L for the Alamo River.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  The samples collected on 6/21/2001 were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: AR-B (at the International Boundary), AR-D10 (Lower Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #10), AR-D8 (Central Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #8), AR-D6A (Holtville Main Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6A), AR-D6 (Rose Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6), AR-D3 (Central Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #3), and at AR-GRB. The samples collected monthly were collected at the International Boundary and at the Salton Sea outlet.Samples were collected on 6/21/2001. Monthly samples were collected from 6/2/1998 through 1/12/2004. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs. Also used Imperial Irrigation District (IID) SOPs. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295122012Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel is used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300132010State Reviewed Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as DieselWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal8 Eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel, used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics (dro), for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295122012Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel is used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298292010State Reviewed Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as DieselWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved8 Eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel, used to describe Diesel Range Organics (dro), for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial213882012Trichloroethylene/TCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353982012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168167Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Trichloroethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Trichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 81 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial213882012Trichloroethylene/TCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50142010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial213892012Vinyl chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, the use rating of the LOE No. 5018 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50182010State Reviewed Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | Vinyl chlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water quality samples were collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these two samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 4000 ug/l Methyl Bromide, 1600 ug/l Dichloromethane, and 525 ug/l Vinyl Chloride (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial182822012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 24 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule CMC, and none of the 19 water samples exceeded the CTR ccc. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   29072006State Reviewed ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Data were collected by the RWQCB on 6/21/2001 at 7 different stations on the Alamo River. Of the 7 samples, all samples were non-detects and did not exceed either of the criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCTR: freshwater chronic maximum hardness dependent: 118.14 µg/L (USEPA, 2000) and acute maximum hardness dependent.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: AR-B (at the International Boundary), AR-D10 (Lower Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #10), AR-D8 (Central Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #8), AR-D6A (Holtville Main Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6A), AR-D6 (Rose Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6), AR-D3 (Central Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #3), and at AR-GRB.All samples were collected on 6/21/2001. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial182822012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 24 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule CMC, and none of the 19 water samples exceeded the CTR ccc. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49682010State Reviewed ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal130Thirteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) of 459 mg/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Thirteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October.Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial182822012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 24 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule CMC, and none of the 19 water samples exceeded the CTR ccc. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50042010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved240Twenty-four water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 7 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, Drop 8, Drop 6A, Drop 6, Drop 3, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Twenty-four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial182822012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 24 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule CMC, and none of the 19 water samples exceeded the CTR ccc. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   359152012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168313ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for zinc is 459 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Alamo River Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial182822012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 24 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule CMC, and none of the 19 water samples exceeded the CTR ccc. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329642012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21940Zinc, DissolvedWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved120None of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for zinc.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet) and 723ARINTL (Alamo River at International Boundary).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial182822012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 24 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule CMC, and none of the 19 water samples exceeded the CTR ccc. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354102012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168181ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for zinc is 459 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial182822012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 24 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule CMC, and none of the 19 water samples exceeded the CTR ccc. None of 25 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52952010State Reviewed ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the river, collected on 10/23/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 459 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following Alamo River location: USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.One sample was collected on 10/23/2001. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295022012alpha-Chlordene | gama-Chlordene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:These pollutants were considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conculsion remains unchanged, and is as follows:Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess alpha-Chlordene, and gamma-Chlordene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300062010State Reviewed alpha-Chlordene | gama-ChlordeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295022012alpha-Chlordene | gama-Chlordene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:These pollutants were considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conculsion remains unchanged, and is as follows:Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess alpha-Chlordene, and gamma-Chlordene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains in same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298192010State Reviewed alpha-Chlordene | gama-ChlordeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial185862012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5006 was replaced by LOE No. 46535. The use rating of the LOE No. 5006 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to the insufficent sample size to determine impairment of this pollutant required by the Listing Policy, and is not used for final use rating. LOE 46535 is combined with LOE 35024 and 2885. LOE 35014 is combined with LOE 5013. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 40 water samples exceeded the CTR Criterion Continuous Concentration for protection of aquatic life, and none of 26 water samples xeceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50062010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial185862012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5006 was replaced by LOE No. 46535. The use rating of the LOE No. 5006 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to the insufficent sample size to determine impairment of this pollutant required by the Listing Policy, and is not used for final use rating. LOE 46535 is combined with LOE 35024 and 2885. LOE 35014 is combined with LOE 5013. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 40 water samples exceeded the CTR Criterion Continuous Concentration for protection of aquatic life, and none of 26 water samples xeceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   28852006State Reviewed alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal14 None of the 14 samples exceeded either of the criteria. All samples were non-detects, so there were no exceedances (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCTR: freshwater acute maximum = 0.22 ppb for alpha-endosulfan. CTR: freshwater chronic maximum = 0.056 ppb for alpha-endosulfan as a 4-day average.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: AR-B (at the International Boundary), AR-D10 (Lower Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #10), AR-D8 (Central Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #8), AR-D6A (Holtville Main Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6A), AR-D6 (Rose Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6), AR-D3 (Central Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #3), and at AR-GRB.All samples were collected on 4/15/2003 and 6/21/01 at 7 different stations. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial185862012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5006 was replaced by LOE No. 46535. The use rating of the LOE No. 5006 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to the insufficent sample size to determine impairment of this pollutant required by the Listing Policy, and is not used for final use rating. LOE 46535 is combined with LOE 35024 and 2885. LOE 35014 is combined with LOE 5013. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 40 water samples exceeded the CTR Criterion Continuous Concentration for protection of aquatic life, and none of 26 water samples xeceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50132010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial185862012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5006 was replaced by LOE No. 46535. The use rating of the LOE No. 5006 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to the insufficent sample size to determine impairment of this pollutant required by the Listing Policy, and is not used for final use rating. LOE 46535 is combined with LOE 35024 and 2885. LOE 35014 is combined with LOE 5013. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 40 water samples exceeded the CTR Criterion Continuous Concentration for protection of aquatic life, and none of 26 water samples xeceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465352012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Not SpecifiedCalifornai Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Continuous Concentrations (CCC) of 0.056 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aqatic life use was used.1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial185862012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5006 was replaced by LOE No. 46535. The use rating of the LOE No. 5006 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to the insufficent sample size to determine impairment of this pollutant required by the Listing Policy, and is not used for final use rating. LOE 46535 is combined with LOE 35024 and 2885. LOE 35014 is combined with LOE 5013. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 40 water samples exceeded the CTR Criterion Continuous Concentration for protection of aquatic life, and none of 26 water samples xeceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350142012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167779alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan I criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial185862012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5006 was replaced by LOE No. 46535. The use rating of the LOE No. 5006 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to the insufficent sample size to determine impairment of this pollutant required by the Listing Policy, and is not used for final use rating. LOE 46535 is combined with LOE 35024 and 2885. LOE 35014 is combined with LOE 5013. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 40 water samples exceeded the CTR Criterion Continuous Concentration for protection of aquatic life, and none of 26 water samples xeceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350242012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167790alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan I criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for alpha-endosulfan is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216132012alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 26 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50132010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216132012alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 26 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351212012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167865Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), alphaCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, alpha.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe BHC, alpha criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.013 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216182012beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteri and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50132010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial216182012beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteri and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351532012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167874Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), betaCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, beta.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe BHC, beta criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.046 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181412012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion continuous concentration, none of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, and none of 12 samples exceeded the CTR for protection of human health from consumption of organisms. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350312012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167797beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan II criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181412012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion continuous concentration, none of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, and none of 12 samples exceeded the CTR for protection of human health from consumption of organisms. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50062010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181412012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion continuous concentration, none of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, and none of 12 samples exceeded the CTR for protection of human health from consumption of organisms. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350412012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167808beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan II criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for beta-endosulfan is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181412012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion continuous concentration, none of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, and none of 12 samples exceeded the CTR for protection of human health from consumption of organisms. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   28962006State Reviewed beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone14 None of the 14 samples exceeded either of the criteria. All samples were non-detects (CRBRWQCB, 2004C).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCTR: freshwater acute maximum = 0.22 ppb for beta-endosulfan. CTR: freshwater chronic maximum = 0.056 ppb for beta-endosulfan as a 4-day average.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: AR-B (at the International Boundary), AR-D10 (Lower Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #10), AR-D8 (Central Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #8), AR-D6A (Holtville Main Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6A), AR-D6 (Rose Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6), AR-D3 (Central Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #3), and at AR-GRB.All samples were collected on 4/15/2003 and 6/21/01. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295242012cis-Nonachlor | trans-Nonachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conslusion:This pollutant was considered for palcement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess cis-Nonachlor, and trans-Nonachlor consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299952010State Reviewed cis-Nonachlor | trans-NonachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006). The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295242012cis-Nonachlor | trans-Nonachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conslusion:This pollutant was considered for palcement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess cis-Nonachlor, and trans-Nonachlor consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296502010State Reviewed cis-Nonachlor | trans-NonachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial212702012m-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine a final use rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347362012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675271, 3 -dichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 2,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial212702012m-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine a final use rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50132010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial295462012o,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)) | o,p'-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | o,p'-DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | p,p'-DDMU Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, and p,p'-DDMU consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298222010State Reviewed o,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)) | o,p'-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | o,p'-DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | p,p'-DDMUWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at two locations in the Alamo River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea from Garst Road bridge.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial305052012o-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of four water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347302012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167491o-DichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 17,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial215222012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine a final use rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50132010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the Alamo River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea from Garst Road bridge.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial215222012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine a final use rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347692012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675361, 4 -dichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Alamo River to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 2,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/1/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181762012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Seven of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Seven of 528 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   53352010State Reviewed pHWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone2640Two hundred and sixty-four water quality measurements were taken at 4 locations in the river, generally collected from 11/1961 through 9/2002. Of these total measurements , none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Measurements were collected at the following Alamo River locations: USGS Station No. 10254670 located at Drop 3 near Calipatria, Ca, USGS Station No. 10254600 at Drop 9 near Holtville, Ca, USGS Station No.10254580 located near the International Boundary, and USGS Station No. 10254730 near Niland, Ca.Two hundred and sixty-four measurements were collected. Measurements were collected from 11/1961 through 9/2002. Fifty measurements were collected from 1961-1969, 106 measurements were collected from 1970-1979, 84 measurements were collected from 1980-1989, 21 measurements were collected from 1990-1999, and 3 measurements were collected from 2000-2002. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181762012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Seven of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Seven of 528 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   322892012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21641pHWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone445Out of the 44 samples, 5 were outside the range specified in the water quality objective.1.Data for bacteria and temperature in Alamo River, New River (Imperial County), and Tijuana River, Jan 2006-Mar. 2010PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGBasin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Alamo River at the International Boundary.Samples were collected monthly between 01/25/06 and 03/10/10. EnviroMatrix Analytical Inc. Quality Assurance Program Manual(Controlled Document Number EMA-100.8.0001)1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181762012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Seven of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Seven of 528 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   323592012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21685pHWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone60None of the 6 samples were outside the pH range specified in the water quality objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGBasin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected at station 723ARGRB1 - Alamo River Outlet.Data were collected during October 2005, May 2006 and 2007, October 2007, April and October 2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181762012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Seven of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Seven of 528 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   323602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21686pHWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone60None of the 6 samples were outside the pH range specified in the water quality objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGBasin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected at station 723ARINTL - Alamo River at International Boundary.Data were collected during October 2005, May 2006 and 2007, October 2007, April and October 2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181762012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Seven of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Seven of 528 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   28802006State ReviewedLOE 825 is assessment from public solicitation data.pHFreshwater Replenishment Pollutant-WaterWaterNone1791The Imperial Irrigation District (IID) collected samples monthly from 1998 through 2003 at 2 locations on the Alamo River. One of these 132 samples was in exceedance of the criteria. The pH level was measured as 9.6 s.u. on 11/10/1998 at the Salton Sea outlet. On 6/21/2001 7 samples were collected and there were 0 exceedances. In 2002, 25 samples were collected and 0 were in exceedance. From 1997 to 1998, 28 samples were collected and 0 were no exceedance. Twelve samples were collected and field and lab measurements were taken for these samples. There were no exceedances. Three samples were collected in January, February and March of 1998. There were no exceedances (CRBRWQCB, 2004C).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedColorado River RWQCB Basin Plan: Minimum = 6.0 s.u., Maximum = 9.0 s.u.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  For the samples collected on 6/21/2001, they were collected at the following Alamo River sampling stations: AR-B (at the International Boundary), AR-D10 (Lower Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #10), AR-D8 (Central Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #8), AR-D6A (Holtville Main Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6A), AR-D6 (Rose Drain drainshed, at Drop Structure #6), AR-D3 (Central Alamo River drainshed, at Drop Structure #3), and at AR-GRB. The samples collected monthly were collected at the International Boundary and at the Salton Sea outlet. For the samples collected in 2002, they were collected at the International Boundary. Samples were collected at one station for the other samples.Samples were collected on 6/21/2001 for the 7 samples, 6/2/1998 through 1/12/2004 for the 132 samples, throughout the year from 2/26/1980 through 10/20/1992 for the 25 samples, monthly from January 1997 through March 1998 for the 28 samples, monthly from January 1996 through December 1996 for the 12 samples, and once a month in January, February, and March of 1998 for the 3 samples. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by North Coast Labs. Also used Imperial Irrigation District (IID) SOPs. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial181762012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Seven of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Seven of 528 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49142010State Reviewed pH (low)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone291Twenty-nine water quality measurements were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, at 9 locations in the Alamo River. Of these total measurements, 1 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences was found in a measurement collected on 5/03/2004 from the International Boundary (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Measurements were collected from the following Alamo River locations: at the International Boundary, Drop 10 near Holtville, CA, Drop 8, at Drew Rd near Imperial, CA, Drop 6A, Drop 6, Drop 3, at Sinclair Rd near Calipatria, CA, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Garst Road bridge.Twenty-nine measurements were collected. Measurements were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea location. The rest of the locations were measured twice in 2002, and once in 2003. The exceedence was found in a measurement collected on 5/03/2004. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAll American CanalCAR7270000020040811153049River & Stream 10723.100000,10726.000000,10727.00000015030107000618,18100204001615,18100204001653,18100204001754,18100204002004,18100204002042,18100204002097,18100204002170,18100204002795,18100204002935,(Total Count: 24)150301070101,150301070102,150301070103,150301070104,150301070106,150301070107,181002040106,181002040301,181002040302,181002040701,(Total Count: 12)Imperial181862012Total Dissolved Solids Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three samples exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of not placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of 71 samples exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   29632006State ReviewedCriterion only applies to MUN beneficial use. May exceed based on Secondary MCL recommended criterion, but not necessarily upper or short term MCLs.Total Dissolved SolidsMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved713Three of 71 water quality samples collected exceeded the water quality objective (CRBRWQCB, 2006a). The All American Canal is a diversion from the Colorado River, which is meant to deliver water for the beneficial uses identified in the Colorado River Basin Plan. The narrative objective for the All American Canal is the same as in the Colorado River, so it is assumed that the numerical objectives for the river are the more appropriate way to interpret the narrative objective in the canal. This approach allows consistency with the Colorado River objective.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedTDS water quality objective at Imperial Dam where water from the Colorado River is diverted to the All American Canal is 879 ppm or mg/L (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected from the All-American Canal by the Imperial Irrigation District. Location(s) is not known.Samples were collected from June 1998 to December 2003. QA Info Missing 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAll American CanalCAR7270000020040811153049River & Stream 10723.100000,10726.000000,10727.00000015030107000618,18100204001615,18100204001653,18100204001754,18100204002004,18100204002042,18100204002097,18100204002170,18100204002795,18100204002935,(Total Count: 24)150301070101,150301070102,150301070103,150301070104,150301070106,150301070107,181002040106,181002040301,181002040302,181002040701,(Total Count: 12)Imperial181292012Turbidity Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, However, a use rating of LOE No. 2965 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 6 samples exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   29652006State ReviewedCriterion only applies to MUN beneficial use.TurbidityMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterNone61Samples were collected by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) from the All-American Canal once a year as part of the Annual Title 22 source water analysis from 1998 through 2003. One of 6 samples was in exceedance of the recommended criterion. This sample was collected on 6/19/1998 (CRBRWQCB, 2004a).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not Specified  California Code of Regulations: Recommended Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level = 5 NTU for water supplied to the public, because this may adversely affect the taste, odor or appearance of drinking water.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Samples were collected from the All-American Canal at Drop # 4.Samples were collected once a year from 1998 through 2003. Samples were collected in June in 1998-1999, October in 2000-2002, and November in 2003. Imperial Irrigation District (IID) SOPs and Clinical Laboratory of San Bernardino (CLSB) QA Manual. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAll American CanalCAR7270000020040811153049River & Stream 10723.100000,10726.000000,10727.00000015030107000618,18100204001615,18100204001653,18100204001754,18100204002004,18100204002042,18100204002097,18100204002170,18100204002795,18100204002935,(Total Count: 24)150301070101,150301070102,150301070103,150301070104,150301070106,150301070107,181002040106,181002040301,181002040302,181002040701,(Total Count: 12)Imperial181302012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the 66 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 66 samples exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   29662006State Reviewed pHMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved661Samples were collected monthly by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) from the All-American Canal from 1998 through 2003. One of 66 samples was in exceedance of the criteria (CRBRWQCB, 2004a).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedColorado River RWQCB Basin Plan: Minimum = 6.0 s.u., Maximum = 9.0 s.u.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected from the All-American Canal below Drop # 1.Samples were collected once a month from 6/21998 through 1/12/2004. Imperial Irrigation District (IID) SOPs. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionBanner CreekCAR7224000019990205153548River & Stream 10722.40000018100203000091,18100203000259,18100203000337,18100203000485,18100203000504,18100203000522,18100203000613,18100203000664,18100203000902,18100203001303,(Total Count: 12)181002030401San Diego181882012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 2878 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 6 samples exceeded the Minimum = 6.0 s.u., Maximum = 9.0 s.u. water quality objective (CRRWQCB, 1994) and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   28782006State Reviewed pHMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterNone60Six samples were collected at Banner Queen Ranch from 1988 through 1993. There were 0 exceedances (CRBRWQCB, 2004a).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedColorado River RWQCB Basin Plan: Minimum = 6.0 s.u., Maximum = 9.0 s.u.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected on Banner Creek at Banner Queen Ranch.Samples were collected once a year for 5 years. QA Info Missing 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside305542012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462702012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671577AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside305542012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462572012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671576AldrinCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside305532012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460982012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671580ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside305532012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462712012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671579ChlordaneCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside305532012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465722012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) ChlordaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007. Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside305552012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461012012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671585DieldrinCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside305552012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461022012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671586DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside305552012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465742012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007. Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside321002012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465762012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007. Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside321002012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461052012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671591EndrinCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside321002012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461062012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671592EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside320992012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461092012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671596HeptachlorCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside320992012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461102012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671597HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside305562012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline for Heptachlor Epoxide and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465782012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in fish tissue is 0.93 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking WaterData for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007. Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside305562012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline for Heptachlor Epoxide and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461112012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671599Heptachlor epoxideCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside305562012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline for Heptachlor Epoxide and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461122012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671600Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside305572012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465792012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobenzene. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue is 2.8 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007. Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside320952012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline for Lindane (gamma-HCH) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461082012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671595Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside320952012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline for Lindane (gamma-HCH) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461072012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671594Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Cold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside320952012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline for Lindane (gamma-HCH) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465772012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in fish tissue is 4.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007. Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside321032012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465802012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. The 1 sample for common carp consisted of 2 composites (5 fish per composite) that were not independent and so were averaged. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish (150 - 500 mm; fillet wet weight) is 0.20 mg/kg.1.Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001Data for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007. Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside305582012Mirex Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One fish tissue sample was collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Because of non-acceptable samples, staff cannot make a decision if the water quality standards are met.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465812012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) MirexCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Mirex. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in fish tissue is 0.28 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens.Data for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007. Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside305592012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461142012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671606PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total PCB concentration of 500 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside305592012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465822012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for polychlorinated biphenyls in fish tissue is 2.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007. Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside305592012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461132012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671605PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Cold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total PCB concentration of 500 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside321042012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465832012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenium in fish tissue is 7.4 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A background dietary consumption rate of 0.114 mg/day is applied for this micronutrient.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007. Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002). 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside305602012Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of one fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465732012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet11Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007. Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside305602012Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of one fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461002012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671583Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside305602012Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of one fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460992012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671582Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Cold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside321062012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3 None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461042012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671589alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Endosulfan concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside321062012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3 None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461032012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671588alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Cold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Endosulfan concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCahuilla, LakeCAL7194700020091211042746Lake & Reservoir 10719.47000018100201000609181002010705Riverside321062012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3 None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465752012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Cahuilla, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in fish tissue is 13,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Cahuilla, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Cahuilla - 719PLC115]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007. Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside3050820121, 3 -dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of three water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347502012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675291, 3 -dichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal30Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 2,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside3210920121, 4 -dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of three water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347712012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675381, 4 -dichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal30Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 2,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside3009720121,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29624 was received a use rating of insufficient becasue no evaluation guideline were available for all these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for chloroform is available for current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of three samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for chloroform and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353372012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167666ChloroformCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal30Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Chloroform.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Chloroform criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 470 ug/L (The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria 2009).1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside3009720121,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29624 was received a use rating of insufficient becasue no evaluation guideline were available for all these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for chloroform is available for current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of three samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for chloroform and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   296242010State Reviewed 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chloroform, Methylene Bromide, Bromchloromethane, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane, 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropane, 2,2-Dichloropropane, or 1,1-Dichloropropene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside2159320121,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 10 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49952010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 11 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside2159320121,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 10 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356472012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1681321,1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal30Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1, 2, 2-Tetrachloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 11 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside2119520121,1,2-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 10 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49982010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside2119520121,1,2-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 10 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347392012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674601,1,2-TrichloroethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal30Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 42 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside2166120121,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347742012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674711,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene ChlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal30Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1-Dichloroethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1-Dichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 3.2 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside2166120121,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49992010State Reviewed 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside2891720121,2,3-Trichlorobenzene | 1,3-Dichloropropene | Chloroethane | Dichlorodifluoromethane | Methyl chloride (Chloromethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, and 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296432010State Reviewed 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene | 1,3-Dichloropropene | Chloroethane | Dichlorodifluoromethane | Methyl chloride (Chloromethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved1 One water quality sample was collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.One water sample was collected. The water sample was collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside3211020121,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of three water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347952012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674801,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal30Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2, 4-Trichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene is 70 ug/l for water and fish consumption.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside2902320121,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | Bromobenzene | Cumene | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) | n-Butylbenzene | n-Propylbenzene | sec-Butylbenzene | tert-Butylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, and tert-Butylbenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene or the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene or the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296222010State Reviewed 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | Bromobenzene | Cumene | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) | n-Butylbenzene | n-Propylbenzene | sec-Butylbenzene | tert-ButylbenzeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside2902320121,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | Bromobenzene | Cumene | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) | n-Butylbenzene | n-Propylbenzene | sec-Butylbenzene | tert-Butylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, and tert-Butylbenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene or the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene or the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299572010State Reviewed delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal5 Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. No sample was collected from the outlet location in October of 2002. A sample was collected from the Ave 52 location in May of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside2122620121,2-Dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 10 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347652012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675021,2-DichloroethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal30Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichloroethane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-Dichloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 99 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside2122620121,2-Dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 10 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49972010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside3211120121,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of three water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   348172012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675201,2-Dichloroethylene,-transCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal30Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-trans-dichlorethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-trans-dichlorethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 140,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside2122720121,2-Dichloropropane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 10 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347972012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675111,2-DichloropropaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal30Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichloropropane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-Dichloropropane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 39 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside2122720121,2-Dichloropropane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 10 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49972010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside2903420121-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29960 and 29627 were received the use rating of insufficient during last accessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Naphthalen in sediment is avaialble, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   325632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21866NaphthaleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Zero of 5 samples collected for naphthalene (Sum of c0-c4) exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for naphthalene in freshwater sediments is 561 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT.The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside2903420121-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29960 and 29627 were received the use rating of insufficient during last accessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Naphthalen in sediment is avaialble, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   299602010State Reviewed 1-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | AcenaphthyleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal6 Six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. A sample was collected from the Ave 52 location in May of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside2903420121-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29960 and 29627 were received the use rating of insufficient during last accessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Naphthalen in sediment is avaialble, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   296272010State Reviewed 1-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | NaphthaleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside2912620121-Methylphenanthrene | Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 29959 and 29626 were received the use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evalution guidelines were available these pollutants. However, sediment quality guideline for Phenanthrene is available, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   299592010State Reviewed 1-MethylphenanthreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal6 Six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. A sample was collected from the Ave 52 location in May of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside2912620121-Methylphenanthrene | Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 29959 and 29626 were received the use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evalution guidelines were available these pollutants. However, sediment quality guideline for Phenanthrene is available, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328062012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21806PhenanthreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Zero of 5 samples collected for Phenanthrene (sum of c0-c4) exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Phenanthrene in freshwater sediments is 1170 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following stations: Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52, and Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT.The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside2912620121-Methylphenanthrene | Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 29959 and 29626 were received the use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evalution guidelines were available these pollutants. However, sediment quality guideline for Phenanthrene is available, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   296262010State Reviewed 1-Methylphenanthrene | PhenanthreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside2902420122-Chlorotoluene | 4-Chlorotoluene | p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, and p-Cymene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296232010State Reviewed 2-Chlorotoluene | 4-Chlorotoluene | p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside3029520122-Hexanone | Acetone | Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) | Methyl isobutyl ketone (Methyl-2-Pentanone) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, and 2-Hexanone consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, or 2-Hexanone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, or 2-Hexanone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296442010State Reviewed 2-Hexanone | Acetone | Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) | Methyl isobutyl ketone (Methyl-2-Pentanone)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved1 One water quality sample was collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, or 2-Hexanone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.One water sample was collected. The water sample was collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside214872012Acenaphthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, the use rating is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine in the water quality standards are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   49972010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside295482012Acenaphthene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Acenaphthene, and Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, or Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, or Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299882010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal6 Six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, or Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside212402012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, none of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460702012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671302AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside212402012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, none of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   348032012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167547AldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Seven samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Aldrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside212402012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, none of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55712010State Reviewed AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal120Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside212402012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, none of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49942010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside212402012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, none of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   348232012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167557AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Aldrin criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 3 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside295472012Aldrin | Chlorpyrifos | Diazinon | Toxaphene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, and Toxaphene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299872010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlorpyrifos | Diazinon | ToxapheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal7 Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside294072012Aluminum | Manganese | Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Aluminum, Manganese, and Silver consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299852010State Reviewed Aluminum | Manganese | SilverWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal5 Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea.Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside291412012Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn | Terbutryn Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 59637 was received a use rating of insufficient information in previous assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for prometryn is available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometryn and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   296372010State Reviewed Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn | TerbutrynWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved4 Four water quality samples were collected and analyzed generally biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, or Terbutryn for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.Four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. A sample was not collected in 11/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside291412012Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn | Terbutryn Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 59637 was received a use rating of insufficient information in previous assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for prometryn is available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometryn and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353722012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168102PrometrynWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Prometryn.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometryn is 1 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside211662012Anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of five sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49972010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside211662012Anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of five sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328002012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21800AnthraceneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Zero of the 5 samples collected for Anthracene (sum of c0-c4) exceed the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for anthracene in freshwater sediments is 845 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following stations: Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) (719CVSC52) and Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet (719CVSCOT).The samples were collected on 10/26/2005-4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside289382012Anthracene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, and Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299792010State Reviewed Anthracene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Dibenz[a,h]anthraceneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal6 Six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. A sample was collected from the Ave 52 location in May of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223532012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of three fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue criteria. None of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50012010State Reviewed Arsenic | CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved90Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effects Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effects Criteria for the protection of aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 0.25 mg/l Arsenic, and 15 mg/l Copper (USDOI, 1998).1.Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223532012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of three fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue criteria. None of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51042010State Reviewed Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal70Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223532012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of three fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue criteria. None of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52802010State Reviewed ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the channel, collected on 10/28/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 33 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel location: USGS Station No. 10259540 located near Mecca, Ca.One sample was collected on 10/28/2001. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223532012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of three fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue criteria. None of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352212012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167577ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe dissolved arsenic criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for dissolved arsenic is 0.150 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223532012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of three fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue criteria. None of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351982012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167571ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for arsenic is 33 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223532012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of three fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue criteria. None of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460712012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671303ArsenicCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. One composite (15 fish per composite) was generated from one species: Tilapia spp. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for arsenic in fish tissue is 0.0034 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. It is assumed that 10% of the total arsenic is present as inorganic arsenic. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223532012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of three fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue criteria. None of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49922010State Reviewed Arsenic | Chromium (total)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 340 ug/l Arsenic, and 1724 ug/l Chromium (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223532012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of three fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue criteria. None of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55282010State Reviewed ArsenicCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal30Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Five fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the analyte was not measured in the samples. The 3 whole fish samples that were acceptable were collected on 9/16/1992, 12/08/1999 and 11/06/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 1 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside223532012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of three fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue criteria. None of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354702012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168281ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for arsenic is 33 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside321132012Atrazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167586AtrazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Atrazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Atrazine is 43 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside291422012Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | Secbumeton Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29638 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Prometon is available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven watervsamples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   296382010State Reviewed Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | SecbumetonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved4 Four water quality samples were collected and analyzed generally biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Atroton, Prometon, or Secbumeton for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.Four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. A sample was not collected in 11/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside291422012Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | Secbumeton Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29638 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Prometon is available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven watervsamples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356862012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168094Prometon (Prometone)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Prometon.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon is 98 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside290352012Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29630 received a use rating of insufficient information in previous assessment cycle becasue no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) is avaialbe, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Seven water samples were collected for Azinphos-methyl (Guthion), but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Because of this reason, staff cannot make a final decision for this pollutant.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   296302010State Reviewed Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Azinphos, methyl, or Azinphos, ethyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside290352012Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29630 received a use rating of insufficient information in previous assessment cycle becasue no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) is avaialbe, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Seven water samples were collected for Azinphos-methyl (Guthion), but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Because of this reason, staff cannot make a final decision for this pollutant.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352892012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167596Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Seven samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Azinphos Methyl (Guthion) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is a maximum of 0.01 ug/l.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside211972012Benzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49992010State Reviewed 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside211972012Benzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353542012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167611BenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal30Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Benzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Benzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 71 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215472012Benzo(a)anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelinem and none of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353302012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167604Benzo(a)anthraceneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Benz(a)anthracene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Benzo(a)anthracene is 1050 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215472012Benzo(a)anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelinem and none of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51032010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Naphthalene | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) Criteria for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215472012Benzo(a)anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelinem and none of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49992010State Reviewed 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215012012Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   349972012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167620Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Benzo(a)pyrene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Benzo(a)Pyrene is 1450 ug/Kg dry weight (Macdonald et al. 2000)1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215012012Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49992010State Reviewed 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215012012Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49592010State Reviewed Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Eight sediment quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) of 1450 ug/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside290712012Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | Terbufos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, Terbufos consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299682010State Reviewed Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | BiphenylWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal6 Six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. A sample was collected from the Ave 52 location in May of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside290712012Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | Terbufos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, Terbufos consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296352010State Reviewed Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | TerbufosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside216592012Benzo[b]fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However the use rating of LOE No. 4999 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if water quality standards are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   49992010State Reviewed 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside289392012Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, and Benzo(k)Fluoranthene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299812010State Reviewed Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluorantheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal6 Six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. A sample was collected from the Ave 52 location in May of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside216602012Benzo[k]fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 4999 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   49992010State Reviewed 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305102012Bifenthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a sinlge line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50), and one of one water samples exceeded the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354162012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168187BifenthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.43 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.43 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 2.Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305102012Bifenthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a sinlge line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50), and one of one water samples exceeded the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   339952012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25873BifenthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one non-detect sample collected for bifenthrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.43 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The guideline 0.43 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 2.Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396.Data were collected at the following station: 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet).The sample was collected on 10/29/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305102012Bifenthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a sinlge line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50), and one of one water samples exceeded the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463392012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000001BifenthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal11Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin. Seven sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0006 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of bifenthrin does not exceed 0.0006 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.004 ug/L. Mixtures of bifenthrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside301102012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, and Oxadiazon consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxadiazon or the sediment fractions of Dacthal, Mirex, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxadiazon or the sediment fractions of Dacthal, Mirex, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299642010State Reviewed Dacthal | Mirex | OxadiazonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal7 Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Dacthal, Mirex, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside301102012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, and Oxadiazon consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxadiazon or the sediment fractions of Dacthal, Mirex, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxadiazon or the sediment fractions of Dacthal, Mirex, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296332010State Reviewed Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | NaledWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside216482012Bromoform Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 10 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352042012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167629BromoformCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal30Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Bromoform.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Bromoform criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 360 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside216482012Bromoform Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 10 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49972010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside210632012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32832 for a use rating because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA evaulatuion guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460722012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671304CadmiumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for cadmium in fish tissue is 2.2 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside210632012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32832 for a use rating because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA evaulatuion guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354832012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168284CadmiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for cadmium is 4.98 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside210632012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32832 for a use rating because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA evaulatuion guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352482012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167641CadmiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for cadmium is 4.98 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside210632012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32832 for a use rating because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA evaulatuion guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49932010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved90Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside210632012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32832 for a use rating because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA evaulatuion guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51042010State Reviewed Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal70Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside210632012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32832 for a use rating because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA evaulatuion guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52812010State Reviewed CadmiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the channel, collected on 10/28/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 4.98 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel location: USGS Station No. 10259540 located near Mecca, Ca.One sample was collected on 10/28/2001. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007). 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside210632012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32832 for a use rating because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA evaulatuion guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328322012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21888CadmiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70None of the 7 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for cadmium.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 719CVSC52 (Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)) and 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet).Samples collected between 10/26/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside210632012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32832 for a use rating because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA evaulatuion guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467572012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved90Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside295432012Carbon (organic) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess organic Carbon consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299922010State Reviewed Carbon (organic)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal5 Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea.Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215582012Carbon tetrachloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352712012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167648Carbon tetrachlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal30Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Carbon tetrachloride.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Carbon tetrachloride criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 4.4 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215582012Carbon tetrachloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49992010State Reviewed 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside291282012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29628 and 29961 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for those pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for malathion and parathion are avaialbe in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Seven water samples were collected for each Malathion and Parathion, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Because of zero-acceptable sample, staff cannot make a final decison if water quality objectives are met.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355552012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168061ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Seven samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The criterion continuous concentration for Parathion, Ethyl is 0.013 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside291282012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29628 and 29961 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for those pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for malathion and parathion are avaialbe in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Seven water samples were collected for each Malathion and Parathion, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Because of zero-acceptable sample, staff cannot make a final decison if water quality objectives are met.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   299612010State Reviewed Methyl Parathion | ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal7 Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside291282012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29628 and 29961 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for those pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for malathion and parathion are avaialbe in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Seven water samples were collected for each Malathion and Parathion, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Because of zero-acceptable sample, staff cannot make a final decison if water quality objectives are met.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   296282010State Reviewed Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | TokuthionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Ethyl Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside291282012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29628 and 29961 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for those pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for malathion and parathion are avaialbe in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Seven water samples were collected for each Malathion and Parathion, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Because of zero-acceptable sample, staff cannot make a final decison if water quality objectives are met.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355902012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167971MalathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Seven samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The UC Davis Criteria for Malathion for the protection of aquatic organisms is a 4 day average of 0.028 ug/L.1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: l. Organophosphate insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:1-48.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215492012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5519 is replaced by the LOE No. 46754, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5519 is not included in the final use rating. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guidance and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55192010State Reviewed ChlordaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal121Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 1 fish fillet sample exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. The exceedance was found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 5.6 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. An exceedance was found in one sample collected on 5/21/1986. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215492012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5519 is replaced by the LOE No. 46754, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5519 is not included in the final use rating. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guidance and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467542012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) ChlordaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal121Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 1 fish fillet sample exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. The exceedance was found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 5/21/1986 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. An exceedance was found in one sample collected on 5/21/1986. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215492012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5519 is replaced by the LOE No. 46754, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5519 is not included in the final use rating. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guidance and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460812012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671306ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215492012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5519 is replaced by the LOE No. 46754, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5519 is not included in the final use rating. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guidance and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460802012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671305ChlordaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215492012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5519 is replaced by the LOE No. 46754, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5519 is not included in the final use rating. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guidance and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   336492012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 24387ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one sample collected was non-detect for chlordane concentration. (Sum of trans-Chlordane, cis-Chlordane, cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor, and Oxychlordane)1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Chlordane in freshwater sediments is 17.6 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet).One sample was collected on 10/29/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215492012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5519 is replaced by the LOE No. 46754, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5519 is not included in the final use rating. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guidance and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   333622012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23402ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70None of the 7 samples exceeded the criterion continuous concentration for chlordane (total). Total chlordane is assessed as the sum of cis-chlordane, trans-chlordane, cis-nonachlor, trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe chlordane criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0043 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 719CVSC52 (Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)) and 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet)Samples collected between 10/26/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215492012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5519 is replaced by the LOE No. 46754, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5519 is not included in the final use rating. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guidance and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328482012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21817ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Zero of 5 samples collected for Chlordane (Sum of trans-Chlordane, cis-Chlordane, cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor, and Oxychlordane) exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Chlordane in freshwater sediments is 17.6 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT.The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215492012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5519 is replaced by the LOE No. 46754, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5519 is not included in the final use rating. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guidance and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   323722012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21782ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one sample collected was non-detect and did not exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Chlordane (Sum of trans-Chlordane, cis-Chlordane, cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor, and Oxychlordane) in freshwater sediments is 17.6 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet (719CVSCOT).One sample was collected on 10/29/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215492012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5519 is replaced by the LOE No. 46754, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5519 is not included in the final use rating. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guidance and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55792010State Reviewed ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal120Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215492012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5519 is replaced by the LOE No. 46754, which is assessed based on the current evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5519 is not included in the final use rating. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guidance and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49942010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside290432012Chlorfenvinphos | Chlorpyrifos, methyl | Cuomaphos | Dicrotophos | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | Fenchlorphos | Leptophos | Merphos | Mevinphos | Tetrachlorvinphos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, and Chlorpyrifos Methyl consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, and Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296312010State Reviewed Chlorfenvinphos | Chlorpyrifos, methyl | Cuomaphos | Dicrotophos | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | Fenchlorphos | Leptophos | Merphos | Mevinphos | TetrachlorvinphosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305112012Chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single lien of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   331032012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 24339ChlorideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal71One of the 7 samples exceeded the criteria of 230 mg/L.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Chloride criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 230000 ug/L (230 mg/L)(USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006).1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology  Samples were collected at stations 719CVSC52 (Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)) and 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet).Samples were collected on 10/26/2005, 5/2/2006, 5/8/2007, 10/22/2007, 4/22/2008, and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215042012Chlorobenzene (mono) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 10 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353122012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167657Chlorobenzene (mono)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal30Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Chlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 21,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215042012Chlorobenzene (mono) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 10 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49972010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215142012Chlorpyrifos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue cirtiera, and none of 6 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354272012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168198ChlorpyrifosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for chlorpyrifos is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.77 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg and Weston, 2007).1.Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215142012Chlorpyrifos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue cirtiera, and none of 6 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351882012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167676ChlorpyrifosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Seven samples total were collected. None of the samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005).Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215142012Chlorpyrifos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue cirtiera, and none of 6 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55202010State Reviewed ChlorpyrifosCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal120Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 10000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215142012Chlorpyrifos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue cirtiera, and none of 6 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460822012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671307ChlorpyrifosCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for chlorpyrifos in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215142012Chlorpyrifos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue cirtiera, and none of 6 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   359162012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168314ChlorpyrifosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for chlorpyrifos is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.77 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg and Weston, 2007).1.Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215812012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, none of seven samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration, none of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52432010State Reviewed Chromium (total)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the river on 10/28/2001. This sample did not exceeded the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 111 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel location: USGS Station No. 10259540 located near Mecca, Ca.One sample was collected. A sample was collected on 10/28/2001. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215812012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, none of seven samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration, none of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   339202012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25778ChromiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70None of the 7 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for chromium III or the criteria for chromium VI.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each chromium III sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. The criterion continuous concentration (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for chromium VI is 11 ug/L and is not hardness dependent.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 719CVSC52 (Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)) and 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet).Samples collected between 10/26/05 and 10/29/08. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215812012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, none of seven samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration, none of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352112012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167684ChromiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Chromium.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for chromium is 111 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215812012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, none of seven samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration, none of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354862012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168287ChromiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chromium.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for chromium is 111 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215812012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, none of seven samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration, none of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51042010State Reviewed Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal70Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215812012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, none of seven samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration, none of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49922010State Reviewed Arsenic | Chromium (total)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 340 ug/l Arsenic, and 1724 ug/l Chromium (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside213452012Chrysene (C1-C4) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51032010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Naphthalene | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) Criteria for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside213452012Chrysene (C1-C4) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328682012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21823Chrysene (C1-C4)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Zero of 5 samples collected for Chrysene (Sum of c0-c3) exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Chrysene (Sum of c0-c3) in freshwater sediments is 1290 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT.The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside213452012Chrysene (C1-C4) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49992010State Reviewed 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215062012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4919 is replaced by the LOE No. 46755, which is assessed based on the current water quality objective. Therefore, the LOE No. 4919 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46755 is combined with LOE No. 32854 for a use rating because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49192010State Reviewed CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved90Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215062012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4919 is replaced by the LOE No. 46755, which is assessed based on the current water quality objective. Therefore, the LOE No. 4919 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46755 is combined with LOE No. 32854 for a use rating because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50012010State Reviewed Arsenic | CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved90Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effects Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effects Criteria for the protection of aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 0.25 mg/l Arsenic, and 15 mg/l Copper (USDOI, 1998).1.Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215062012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4919 is replaced by the LOE No. 46755, which is assessed based on the current water quality objective. Therefore, the LOE No. 4919 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46755 is combined with LOE No. 32854 for a use rating because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51042010State Reviewed Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal70Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215062012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4919 is replaced by the LOE No. 46755, which is assessed based on the current water quality objective. Therefore, the LOE No. 4919 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46755 is combined with LOE No. 32854 for a use rating because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52832010State Reviewed CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the channel, collected on 10/28/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 149 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel location: USGS Station No. 10259540 located near Mecca, Ca.One sample was collected on 10/28/2001. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215062012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4919 is replaced by the LOE No. 46755, which is assessed based on the current water quality objective. Therefore, the LOE No. 4919 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46755 is combined with LOE No. 32854 for a use rating because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328542012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21895Copper, DissolvedWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved70None of the 7 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for copper.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 719CVSC52 (Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)) and 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet).Samples collected between 10/26/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215062012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4919 is replaced by the LOE No. 46755, which is assessed based on the current water quality objective. Therefore, the LOE No. 4919 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46755 is combined with LOE No. 32854 for a use rating because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352782012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167702CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Copper.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for copper is 149 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215062012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4919 is replaced by the LOE No. 46755, which is assessed based on the current water quality objective. Therefore, the LOE No. 4919 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46755 is combined with LOE No. 32854 for a use rating because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354992012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168290CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Copper.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for copper is 149 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215062012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4919 is replaced by the LOE No. 46755, which is assessed based on the current water quality objective. Therefore, the LOE No. 4919 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46755 is combined with LOE No. 32854 for a use rating because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467552012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved90Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305122012Cyanazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353182012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167708CyanazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cyanazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Cyanazine is 4.8 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305132012Cyfluthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   340062012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25874CyfluthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one non-detect sample collected for Cyfluthrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg et al. 2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data were collected at the following station: 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet).The sample was collected on 10/29/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305132012Cyfluthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354282012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168199CyfluthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cyfluthrin from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305132012Cyfluthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463622012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000009CyfluthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total. Seven sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.00005 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of cyfluthrin does not exceed 0.00005 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.0003 ug/L. Mixtures of cyfluthrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305142012Cyhalothrin, Lambda Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   340072012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25875Cyhalothrin, LambdaWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one non-detect sample collected for lambda-cyhalothrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.44 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg et al. 2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data were collected at the following station: 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet).The sample was collected on 10/29/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305142012Cyhalothrin, Lambda Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463242012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000017Cyhalothrin, LambdaWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, total. Seven sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0005 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of lambda-cyhalothrin does not exceed 0.0005 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.001 ug/L. Mixtures of lambda-cyhalothrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305142012Cyhalothrin, Lambda Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354432012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168205Cyhalothrin, LambdaWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.44 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.44 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for lambda-cyhalothrin from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305152012Cypermethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) , and one of one water sample exceeded the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354592012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168211CypermethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.3 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.3 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cypermethrin from Maund et al. (2002).1.Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305152012Cypermethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) , and one of one water sample exceeded the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   340082012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25876CypermethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one non-detect sample collected for cypermethrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.3 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Maund et al. 2002).1.Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15Data were collected at the following station: 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet).The sample was collected on 10/29/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305152012Cypermethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) , and one of one water sample exceeded the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463542012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000025CypermethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal11Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total. Six sample results (including 1 detected but not quantified result) were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0005 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of cypermethrin does not exceed 0.0002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.001 ug/L. Mixtures of cypermethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside321142012Dacthal Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353442012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167718DacthalWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Dacthal.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal 6600 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305162012Deltamethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50), and none of seven water samples exceeded the maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC). These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463262012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000033DeltamethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC) of 0.02 ug/L, which is the geometric mean of the LOEC and NOEC, as determined in a 280 day toxicity study with the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database)1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305162012Deltamethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50), and none of seven water samples exceeded the maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC). These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   340092012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25877DeltamethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one non-detect sample collected for deltamethrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.79 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg et al. 2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data were collected at the following station: 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet).The sample was collected on 10/29/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305162012Deltamethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50), and none of seven water samples exceeded the maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC). These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354752012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168217DeltamethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.79 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.79 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for deltamethrin from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside222332012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six sediment samples exceeded the the median lethal concentration (LC50), none of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA screening value, and none of seven water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. Theses sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   359192012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168317DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for diazinon is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 11 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 11 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for diazinon from Ding et al. (2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside222332012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six sediment samples exceeded the the median lethal concentration (LC50), none of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA screening value, and none of seven water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. Theses sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355082012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168228DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for diazinon is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 11 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 11 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for diazinon from Ding et al. (2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside222332012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six sediment samples exceeded the the median lethal concentration (LC50), none of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA screening value, and none of seven water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. Theses sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351942012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167728DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Finlayson, 2004).1.Water quality for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and GameData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside222332012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six sediment samples exceeded the the median lethal concentration (LC50), none of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA screening value, and none of seven water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. Theses sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55212010State Reviewed DiazinonCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal120Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 300 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside222332012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six sediment samples exceeded the the median lethal concentration (LC50), none of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA screening value, and none of seven water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. Theses sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50022010State Reviewed DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDFG Hazardous Assessment Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.16 ug/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and GameSamples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside222332012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six sediment samples exceeded the the median lethal concentration (LC50), none of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA screening value, and none of seven water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. Theses sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459032012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671310DiazinonCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for diazinon in fish tissue is 1,500 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside275002012Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 4999 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the wate quality standards are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   49992010State Reviewed 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside289052012Dibenzothiophene | o-Xylene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Dibenzothiophene, and o-Xylene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene or the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene or the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296422010State Reviewed Dibenzothiophene | o-XyleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved4 Four water quality samples were collected and analyzed generally biannually from 10/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.Four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 10/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside289052012Dibenzothiophene | o-Xylene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Dibenzothiophene, and o-Xylene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene or the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene or the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299762010State Reviewed DibenzothiopheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal6 Six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. A sample was collected from the Ave 52 location in May of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside295492012Dichlorobenzophenone Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Dichlorobenzophenone consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Dichlorobenzophenone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Dichlorobenzophenone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299892010State Reviewed DichlorobenzophenoneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal7 Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of pp-DCBP for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside211672012Dichlorobromomethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, the use rating is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   49972010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside213982012Dichloromethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. This line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50002010State Reviewed Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | Vinyl chlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10One water quality sample was generally collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 4000 ug/l Methyl Bromide, 1600 ug/l Dichloromethane, and 525 ug/l Vinyl Chloride (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.One water sample was collected. A water sample was collected and analyzed in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside321152012Dichlorvos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352392012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167739DichlorvosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Dichlorvos.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Dichlorvos is 7.2 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside321162012Dimethoate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353502012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167772DimethoateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Dimethoate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dimethoate is 43 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside211552012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteira. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55222010State Reviewed EndosulfanCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal120Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 20,000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside211552012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteira. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56052010State Reviewed EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal120Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside211552012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteira. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   330882012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 24187EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70None of the 7 samples exceeded the criteria.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe endosulfan criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L. This value corresponds to the sum of alpha-endosulfan and beta-endosulfan (USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006).1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology  Samples were collected at stations 719CVSC52 (Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)) and 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet).Samples were collected on 10/26/2005, 5/2/2006, 5/8/2007, 10/22/2007, 4/22/2008, and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside211552012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteira. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459062012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671313EndosulfanCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. Total endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in fish tissue is 13,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside211552012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteira. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459072012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671314EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp. Total endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Endosulfan concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside211652012Endosulfan sulfate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteira and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350502012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167817Endosulfan sulfateCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan sulfate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan Sulfate criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside211652012Endosulfan sulfate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteira and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49972010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside289402012Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, and Endosulfan Sulfate consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299832010State Reviewed Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal7 Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215052012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355152012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168296EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for endrin is 207 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215052012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350592012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167826EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215052012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350702012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167839EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for sum of endrin is 207 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215052012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350692012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167838EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.036 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215052012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56132010State Reviewed EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal120Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215052012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459092012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671316EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215052012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459082012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671315EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215052012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49942010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215052012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49982010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215052012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51022010State Reviewed Dieldrin | Endrin | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal90Nine sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, and 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Nine sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location in. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215052012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55232010State Reviewed EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal120Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 1000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside214592012Endrin aldehyde Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49982010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside214592012Endrin aldehyde Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350822012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167851Endrin aldehydeCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin Aldehyde.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endrin Aldehyde criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305172012Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50), and none of seven water samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463472012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000041Esfenvalerate/FenvalerateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.13 ug/L, as determined in a 96 hour toxicity test using the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database)1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305172012Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50), and none of seven water samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354332012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168229Esfenvalerate/FenvalerateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.5 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.5 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305172012Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50), and none of seven water samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   359382012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168320Esfenvalerate/FenvalerateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.5 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.5 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215702012Ethion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of this pollutant is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office Of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   55242010State Reviewed EthionCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal120Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 2000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside214102012Ethylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 10 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351012012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167858EthylbenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal30Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Ethylbenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Ethylbenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 29,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside214102012Ethylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 10 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49982010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305182012Fenpropathrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of four sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline, and none of three water samples exceeded the evalaution guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   359572012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168323FenpropathrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for fenpropathrin from Ding et al. ( 2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305182012Fenpropathrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of four sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline, and none of three water samples exceeded the evalaution guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354622012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168238FenpropathrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for fenpropathrin from Ding et al. ( 2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected over the time period 10/22/2007-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305182012Fenpropathrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of four sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline, and none of three water samples exceeded the evalaution guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463692012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000049FenpropathrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal30Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin, 2.2 ug/L, is the median lethal concentration (LC50) as determined in a 96 hour toxicity test using the bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database)1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected over the time period 10/22/2007-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305182012Fenpropathrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of four sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline, and none of three water samples exceeded the evalaution guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   340102012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25878FenpropathrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one non-detect sample collected for fenpropathrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Ding et al. 2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data were collected at the following station: 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet).The sample was collected on 10/29/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside213462012Fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355092012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168253FluorantheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Fluoranthene (sum of Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene/Pyrenes, C1-).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for fluoranthene is 2230 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside213462012Fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49982010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside213462012Fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51032010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Naphthalene | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) Criteria for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside213472012Fluorene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, none of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteira. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329832012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21860FluoreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Zero of 5 samples collected for Fluorene (Sum of c0-c3) exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for fluorene in freshwater sediments is 536 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT.The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside213472012Fluorene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, none of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteira. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49982010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside213472012Fluorene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, none of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteira. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51032010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Naphthalene | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) Criteria for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside214602012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459122012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671319HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside214602012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351582012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167910HeptachlorCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Seven samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00021 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside214602012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350952012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167920HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside214602012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56232010State Reviewed HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal120Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside214602012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49942010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside214612012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459142012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671321Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside214612012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459132012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671320Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (15 fish per composite) was generated from one species: Tilapia spp. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in fish tissue is 0.93 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking WaterData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside214612012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351472012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167938Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor Epoxide criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside214612012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351152012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167928Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Seven samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor Epoxide criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00011 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside214612012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56322010State Reviewed Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal120Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside214612012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55252010State Reviewed Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal20Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Five fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentrations. The 2 whole fish samples that were acceptable were collected on 12/08/1999 and 11/06/2000. Of these total samples, neither exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 4 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside214612012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49942010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside183022012Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Heptachlor, and Heptachlor Epoxide consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299842010State Reviewed Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal7 Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215712012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459152012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671322Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobenzene. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue is 2.8 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215712012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55262010State Reviewed Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal120Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 20 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215712012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351672012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167946Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Seven samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Hexachlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00077 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside294082012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Methoxychlor | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, and Methoxychlor consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299862010State Reviewed Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Methoxychlor | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal7 Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside211932012Hexachlorobutadiene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 10 water samples exceeded the CTR criteira and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49982010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside211932012Hexachlorobutadiene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 10 water samples exceeded the CTR criteira and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355442012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167955HexachlorobutadieneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal30Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobutadiene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Hexachlorobutadiene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 50 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside214092012Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (mixture) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of this pollutant is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   67322010State Reviewed Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (mixture)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal120Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside289272012Hydroxide | Pheophytin a Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.7.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Hydroxide, and Pheophytin a consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.7.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Hydroxide, or Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Hydroxide, or Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296452010State Reviewed Hydroxide | Pheophytin aWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved2 Two water quality sample were collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at two locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for Hydroxide, or Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.Two water samples were collected. The water sample were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site, and where Avenue 52 crosses over the stormwater channel. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215182012Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of this pollutant is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   49992010State Reviewed 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside214622012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32917 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteira, and none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49932010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved90Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside214622012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32917 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteira, and none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467572012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved90Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside214622012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32917 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteira, and none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   358672012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168302LeadWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Lead.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for lead is 128 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside214622012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32917 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteira, and none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355682012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167964LeadWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Lead.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for lead is 128 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside214622012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32917 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteira, and none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329172012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21920LeadWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70None of the 7 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for lead.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 719CVSC52 (Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)), and 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet).Samples collected between 10/26/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside214622012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32917 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteira, and none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52842010State Reviewed LeadWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the channel, collected on 10/28/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 128 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel location: USGS Station No. 10259540 located near Mecca, Ca.One sample was collected on 10/28/2001. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside214622012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32917 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteira, and none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51042010State Reviewed Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal70Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside210752012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of six sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459102012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671317Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in fish tissue is 4.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside210752012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of six sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355182012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168299Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Lindane (gamma-HCH) is 4.99 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside210752012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of six sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351222012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167898Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Lindane (gamma-HCH) is 4.99 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside210752012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of six sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351082012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167897Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe gamma-BHC (Lindane) criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.95 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside210752012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of six sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350862012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167885Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe HCH, Gamma (Lindane) criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of organisms is 0.063 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside210752012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of six sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   67402010State Reviewed Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal120Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside210752012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of six sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55272010State Reviewed Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal120Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 30 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside210752012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of six sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459112012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671318Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside210752012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of six sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51022010State Reviewed Dieldrin | Endrin | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal90Nine sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, and 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Nine sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location in. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside212412012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459162012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671323MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. The one composite could not be used in the assessment due to a total fish length that did not fall within lengths noted in the guideline.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish (150 - 500 mm; fillet wet weight) is 0.20 mg/kg.1.Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside212412012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   358702012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168305MercuryWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for mercury is 1.06 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside212412012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356742012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167992MercuryWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for mercury is 1.06 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside212412012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356322012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167982MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Mercury criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.051 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside212412012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   267202010State Reviewed MercuryWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NRWQC criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.4 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2002).1.National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside212412012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51042010State Reviewed Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal70Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside212412012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49982010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside321172012Methidathion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353582012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167998MethidathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Methidathion.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion is 0.86 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside321182012Methoxychlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355492012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168009MethoxychlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Methoxychlor.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The criterion continuous concentration for Methoxychlor is 0.3 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305192012Methyl Parathion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria, and none of six sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   359602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168326Methyl ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for methyl parathion is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 6 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 6 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for methyl parathion from Ding et al. (2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305192012Methyl Parathion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria, and none of six sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355792012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168069Methyl ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion is 0.08 ug/L.1.Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Methyl to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River SystemData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305192012Methyl Parathion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria, and none of six sediment samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354802012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168246Methyl ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for methyl parathion is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 6 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 6 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for methyl parathion from Ding et al. (2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside213992012Methyl bromide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. This line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50002010State Reviewed Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | Vinyl chlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10One water quality sample was generally collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 4000 ug/l Methyl Bromide, 1600 ug/l Dichloromethane, and 525 ug/l Vinyl Chloride (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.One water sample was collected. A water sample was collected and analyzed in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305202012Mirex Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One composite fish tissue sample and seven water samples were collected for Mirex, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Thus, staff cannot make a final decision if the water quality objective is met.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459172012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671324MirexCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Mirex. One composite (15 fish per composite) was generated from one species: Tilapia spp. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in fish tissue is 0.28 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305202012Mirex Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One composite fish tissue sample and seven water samples were collected for Mirex, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Thus, staff cannot make a final decision if the water quality objective is met.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355742012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168019MirexWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Seven samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The criterion continuous concentration for Mirex is 0.001 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305212012Molinate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356122012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168026MolinateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Molinate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Molinate is 0.6 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside213442012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating.LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32938 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 4996 is combined with LOE No. 35660 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteira, and none of 14 sediment smaples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49932010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved90Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside213442012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating.LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32938 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 4996 is combined with LOE No. 35660 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteira, and none of 14 sediment smaples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49962010State Reviewed NickelCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved90Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 4600 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside213442012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating.LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32938 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 4996 is combined with LOE No. 35660 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteira, and none of 14 sediment smaples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51042010State Reviewed Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal70Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 149 mg/kg Copper, 128 mg/kg Lead, 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, and 48.6 mg/kg Nickel (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside213442012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating.LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32938 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 4996 is combined with LOE No. 35660 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteira, and none of 14 sediment smaples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467572012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved90Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside213442012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating.LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32938 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 4996 is combined with LOE No. 35660 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteira, and none of 14 sediment smaples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168039NickelCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Nickel criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 4,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside213442012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating.LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32938 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 4996 is combined with LOE No. 35660 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteira, and none of 14 sediment smaples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356842012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168048NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for nickel is 48.6 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside213442012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating.LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32938 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 4996 is combined with LOE No. 35660 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteira, and none of 14 sediment smaples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   358932012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168308NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for nickel is 48.6 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside213442012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating.LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32938 for a use rating determination. LOE No. 4996 is combined with LOE No. 35660 for a use rating determination. These pairs were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteira, and none of 14 sediment smaples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329382012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21928NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved70None of the 7 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for nickel.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 719CVSC52 (Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)) and 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet).Samples collected between 10/26/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside290592012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon or the sediment fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, or Tedion were available, and these pollutants were received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle. However, an evalution guideline for Phorate and Phosmet is avaialbe in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database for Phorate LC50, and none of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database for Phosmet LC50. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   296342010State Reviewed Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | TrichloronateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside290592012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon or the sediment fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, or Tedion were available, and these pollutants were received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle. However, an evalution guideline for Phorate and Phosmet is avaialbe in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database for Phorate LC50, and none of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database for Phosmet LC50. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   299652010State Reviewed Oxychlordane | TedionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal7 Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Oxychlordane, or Tedion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside290592012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon or the sediment fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, or Tedion were available, and these pollutants were received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle. However, an evalution guideline for Phorate and Phosmet is avaialbe in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database for Phorate LC50, and none of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database for Phosmet LC50. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   299662010State Reviewed Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal6 Six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Perylene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. A sample was collected from the Ave 52 location in May of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside290592012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon or the sediment fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, or Tedion were available, and these pollutants were received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle. However, an evalution guideline for Phorate and Phosmet is avaialbe in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database for Phorate LC50, and none of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database for Phosmet LC50. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356182012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168078PhorateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Phorate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Phorate is 2 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside290592012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon or the sediment fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, or Tedion were available, and these pollutants were received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle. However, an evalution guideline for Phorate and Phosmet is avaialbe in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database for Phorate LC50, and none of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database for Phosmet LC50. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356432012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168086PhosmetWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Phosmet.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet is 5.6 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305232012Oxygen, Dissolved Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of seven water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.24. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   323102012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21666Oxygen, DissolvedWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved21One of the two samples exceeded the water quality objective for dissolved oxygen.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGFrom the Colorado River Water Quality Control Plan 'The dissolved Oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below the following minimum levels at any time: for waters designated as WARM-5.0 mg/L.'1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  The samples were collected at station 719CVSC52 - Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52).The samples were collected during October 2005 and May 2006. The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305232012Oxygen, Dissolved Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of seven water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.24. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   323112012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21667Oxygen, DissolvedWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved51One of the five samples exceeded the water quality objective for dissolved oxygen.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGFrom the Colorado River Water Quality Control Plan 'The dissolved Oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below the following minimum levels at any time: for waters designated as WARM-5.0 mg/L.'1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  The samples were collected at station 719CVSCOT - Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet.The samples were collected during May 2006, May 2007, October 2007, April 2008, and October 2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305242012PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354542012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168275PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Total PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for fluoranthene is 2230 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305252012Permethrin, total Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   340112012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25879Permethrin, totalWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one non-detect sample collected for permethrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg et al. 2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data were collected at the following station: 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet).The sample was collected on 10/29/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305252012Permethrin, total Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354812012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168247Permethrin, totalWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 8.9 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for permethrin from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305252012Permethrin, total Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464532012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000057Permethrin, totalWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total. Five sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.002 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of permethrin does not exceed 0.002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.01 ug/L. Mixtures of permethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/22/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside290722012Propazine | Terbuthylazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29639 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for propazine and terbuthylazine. However, an evalution guideline for propazine is available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for propazine and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355622012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168110PropazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Propazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Propazine is 25 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside290722012Propazine | Terbuthylazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29639 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for propazine and terbuthylazine. However, an evalution guideline for propazine is available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for propazine and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   296392010State Reviewed Propazine | TerbuthylazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved4 Four water quality samples were collected and analyzed generally biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Propazine, or Terbuthylazine for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.Four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. A sample was not collected in 11/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215002012Pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49982010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215002012Pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51032010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Naphthalene | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) Criteria for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215002012Pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354382012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168259PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Pyrene (sum of Pyrene and Fluoranthene/Pyrenes, C1-).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for pyrene is 1520 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside289292012Salinity Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Salinity consistent with Listing Policy section 3.2. No evaluation guideline for Salinity for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for Salinity for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296462010State Reviewed SalinityWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved3 Three water quality samples were collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for Salinity for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.Three water samples were collected. The water sample were collected and analyzed from April 2003 through May 2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside216282012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 5529 will not be used in the Final Use Rating because the data appear to be identical to the data in Line of Evidence No. 5530. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish criteria, none of nine water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55302010State Reviewed SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal120Five fish fillet samples and seven whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the channel. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 7400 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 2.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish samples were generally collected from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Fish samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Five fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp and tilapia were collected. One channel catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1986. One channel catfish single fish fillet was collected in the year 1987. One carp fillet composite sample was collected in the 1986. One carp single fish fillet sample was collected in 1987. One tilapia fish composite sample was collected in the year 1997. Seven whole fish composite samples of red shiner, tilapia, sailfin molly and redbelly tilapia were collected. Three red shiner whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1992, 1995, and 2000. Two tilapia whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 1999. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1995. One redbelly tilapia was collected in the year 1995. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside216282012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 5529 will not be used in the Final Use Rating because the data appear to be identical to the data in Line of Evidence No. 5530. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish criteria, none of nine water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459202012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671327SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. One composite (15 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Tilapia spp.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenium in fish tissue is 7.4 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A background dietary consumption rate of 0.114 mg/day is applied for this micronutrient.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT]Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside216282012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 5529 will not be used in the Final Use Rating because the data appear to be identical to the data in Line of Evidence No. 5530. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish criteria, none of nine water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   302752010State Reviewed SeleniumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal5 Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Selenium for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea.Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside216282012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 5529 will not be used in the Final Use Rating because the data appear to be identical to the data in Line of Evidence No. 5530. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish criteria, none of nine water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55292010State Reviewed SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal80Downloadable data of chemical analysis results from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) webpage, containing program data for the years 1978-2000. Data pertaining specifically to Region 7 was downloaded from the SWRCB website in August 2007 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Chemical monitoring of sedimentsBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 2 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Redwood Creek Rotary Screw Trap Downstream Migration Study Redwood Valley, Humboldt County, California April 4 - August 5, 2000. Draft ReportSamples were collected from the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel near Mecca, CA.Fish samples were generally collected and analyzed annually from 5/1986 through 11/2000. Samples were not collected every sampling round. Field procedures described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. Used CDFG's Laboratory Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside216282012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The results of Line of Evidence No. 5529 will not be used in the Final Use Rating because the data appear to be identical to the data in Line of Evidence No. 5530. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish criteria, none of nine water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49562010State Reviewed SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved90Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: For all surface waters that are tributaries to the Salton Sea, a one hour average value of selenium shall not exceed .02 mg/L (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near Ave 52, and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside216622012Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using the current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32944 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467572012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved90Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside216622012Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using the current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32944 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49932010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved90Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside216622012Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using the current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32944 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329442012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21935SilverWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70None of the 7 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for silver.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion maximum concentrations (1-hour average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 719CVSC52 (Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)) and 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet).Samples collected between 10/26/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside321192012Simazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356042012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168121SimazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Simazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Simazine is 90 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside289042012Streptococcus, fecal Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess fecal Streptococcus consistent with Listing Policy section 3.3. No evaluation guideline for the total density of fecal Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the total density of fecal Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296412010State Reviewed Streptococcus, fecalWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal6 Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at two locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street, and where Avenue 52 crosses over the stormchannel.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. Samples were collected from the Avenue 52 crossing in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside211942012Tetrachloroethylene/PCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 10 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49982010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside211942012Tetrachloroethylene/PCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 10 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356732012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168141Tetrachloroethylene/PCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal30Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Tetrachloroethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Tetrachloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 8.85 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305092012Thiobencarb/Bolero Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353802012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168149Thiobencarb/BoleroWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Thiobencarb.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Thiobencarb is 1.4 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305262012Toluene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of three water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353912012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168160TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal30Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Toluene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Toluene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 200,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside289022012Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel is used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved and sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296402010State Reviewed Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as DieselWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved4 Four water quality samples were collected and analyzed generally biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel, used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics (dro), for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.Four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside289022012Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel is used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved and sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299702010State Reviewed Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as DieselWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal4 Four sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel, used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics (dro), for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea.Four sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215692012Trichloroethylene/TCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 10 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354002012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168169Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal30Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Trichloroethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Trichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 81 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215692012Trichloroethylene/TCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 10 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49982010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside214002012Vinyl chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. This line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50002010State Reviewed Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | Vinyl chlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10One water quality sample was generally collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 4000 ug/l Methyl Bromide, 1600 ug/l Dichloromethane, and 525 ug/l Vinyl Chloride (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.One water sample was collected. A water sample was collected and analyzed in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215022012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32965 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467572012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved90Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215022012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32965 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   358962012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168311ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for zinc is 459 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215022012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32965 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354112012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168182ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for zinc is 459 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215022012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32965 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329652012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21941ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70None of the 7 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for zinc.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 719CVSC52 (Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)) and 719CVSCOT (Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet).Samples collected between 10/26/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215022012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32965 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49932010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved90Nine water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea. Samples from Ave 52 were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215022012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32965 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49672010State Reviewed ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal70Seven sediment quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) of 459 mg/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215022012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4993 is replaced by the LOE No. 46757, which is assessed using current water quality objective, and is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46757 is combined with LOE No. 32965 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52852010State Reviewed ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the channel, collected on 10/28/2001. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 459 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel location: USGS Station No. 10259540 located near Mecca, Ca.One sample was collected on 10/28/2001. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside291302012alpha-Chlordene | gama-Chlordene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess alpha-Chlordene, and gamma-Chlordene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299622010State Reviewed alpha-Chlordene | gama-ChlordeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal7 Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside291302012alpha-Chlordene | gama-Chlordene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess alpha-Chlordene, and gamma-Chlordene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296292010State Reviewed alpha-Chlordene | gama-ChlordeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside224352012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350162012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167781alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan I criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside224352012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49972010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside224352012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49942010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside224352012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350252012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167791alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan I criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for alpha-endosulfan is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside212912012alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49972010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside212912012alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351342012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167867Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), alphaCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, alpha.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe BHC, alpha criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.013 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside212922012beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351552012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167876Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), betaCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, Beta.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe BHC, beta criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.046 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside212922012beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49972010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside216472012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350422012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167809beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan II criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for beta-endosulfan is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside216472012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350332012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167799beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan II criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside216472012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49972010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside216472012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49942010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside291252012cis-Nonachlor | trans-Nonachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess cis-Nonachlor, and trans-Nonachlor consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299582010State Reviewed cis-Nonachlor | trans-NonachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal7 Seven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location. Samples were collected from the Ave 52 location in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside291252012cis-Nonachlor | trans-Nonachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess cis-Nonachlor, and trans-Nonachlor consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296252010State Reviewed cis-Nonachlor | trans-NonachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside211682012m-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of this pollutant is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   49972010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside290572012o,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)) | o,p'-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | o,p'-DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | p,p'-DDMU Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, and p,p'-DDMU consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296322010State Reviewed o,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)) | o,p'-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | o,p'-DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | p,p'-DDMUWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at one location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea on Lincoln street.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the outlet to the Salton Sea site. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305282012o-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of three water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347442012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167493o-DichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal30Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 17,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet - 719CVSCOT, Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52) - 719CVSC52]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside216272012p,p'-DDE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNYYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. This line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The sample exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of one water sample exceeded the California Toxic Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   48562010State Reviewed p,p'-DDECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved11Seven water samples were taken at one location on the river. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water sample, collected near the outlet to the Salton Sea location on 4/10/2003, exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Not SpecifiedCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.00059 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The exceedence was found in a sample collected on 11/04/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside212252012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of this pollutant is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to not enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality standards are met. herefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   49972010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from near the outlet to the Salton Sea.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, In May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215722012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 39 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   323612012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21687pHWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone20None of the 2 samples were outside the pH range specified in the water quality objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGBasin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected at station 719CVSC52 - Coachella Valley Stormchannel (Ave 52).Data were collected during October 2005, and May 2006. The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215722012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 39 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   53332010State Reviewed pHWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone230Twenty-three water quality measurements were taken at 1 location along the channel, generally collected from 10/1963 through 9/2002. Of these total measurements , none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Measurements were collected at the following Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel location: USGS Station No. 10259540 located near Mecca, Ca.Twenty-three measurements were collected. Measurements were collected from 10/1963 through 9/2002. Nineteen measurements were collected from 1963-1969, no measurements were collected from 1970-1979, no measurements were collected from 1980-1989, one measurement was collected from 1990-1999, and 3 measurements were collected from 2000-2002. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215722012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 39 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51162010State Reviewed pHWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved90Nine water quality measurements were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Coachella Stormwater Channel. Of these total measurements, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Measurements were collected from near Ave 52 and at the outlet to the Salton Sea.Nine measurements were collected. Measurements were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the outlet to the Salton Sea location in May and October of 2002.Measurements were collected in May and Octboer 2002 at the Avenue 52 location. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside215722012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 39 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   323622012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21688pHWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone50None of the 5 samples were outside the pH range specified in the water quality objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGBasin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected at station 719CVSCOT - Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet.Data were collected during May 2006 and 2007, October 2007, April and October 2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2171320121, 1-dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine samples exceeded the California Maximum Contaminant Level and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347582012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674671, 1-dichloroethaneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1-Dichloroethane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for 1, 1-Dichloroethane is 5 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) 2.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2171320121, 1-dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine samples exceeded the California Maximum Contaminant Level and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino3053420121, 2-Dibromoethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3.Two water samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Thus, staff cannot make a final decision if the water quality objective is met.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347282012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674891, 2-DibromoethaneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Two samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for 1, 2-Dibromoethane is 0.05 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations ).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2927320121,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29436 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evalaution guideline were available. However, an evaluation guideline for 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) is available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Thus zero of zero samples exceeded the California Maximum Contaminant Level for 1, 2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane(DBCP) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   294362010State Reviewed 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the river (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chloroform, Methylene Bromide, Bromochloromethane, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane, 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropane, 2,2-Dichloropropane, or 1,1-Dichloropropene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2927320121,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29436 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evalaution guideline were available. However, an evaluation guideline for 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) is available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Thus zero of zero samples exceeded the California Maximum Contaminant Level for 1, 2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane(DBCP) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347262012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674871,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Two samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for 1, 2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane(DBCP) is 0.20 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2203120121,1,1-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded theCalifornia Maximum Contaminant Level and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2203120121,1,1-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded theCalifornia Maximum Contaminant Level and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347232012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674561,1,1-TrichloroethaneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane is 200 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations ).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2198920121,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels, and none of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356482012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1681331,1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1, 2, 2-Tetrachloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 11 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2198920121,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels, and none of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76672010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | Benzene | Carbon tetrachlorideMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Seven samples were taken at 1 location on this segment of the Colorado River. One water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The six acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segement of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.001 mg/l Benzene, 0.0005 mg/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.0005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, and 0.001 mg/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2198920121,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels, and none of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356692012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1681371,1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Two samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1, 2, 2-Tetrachloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.17 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2206920121,1,2-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of eight water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms, and none of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded..  76472010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Seven samples were taken at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The six acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2206920121,1,2-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of eight water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms, and none of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded..  76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2206920121,1,2-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of eight water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms, and none of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded..  271512010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Seven samples were taken at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The six acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2206920121,1,2-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of eight water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms, and none of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded..  347402012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674611,1,2-TrichloroethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 42 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2206920121,1,2-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of eight water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms, and none of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded..  467592012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70The seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria .1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2206920121,1,2-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of eight water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms, and none of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded..  347562012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674651,1,2-TrichloroethaneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.60 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2193420121,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CDPH MCLs, and none of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347792012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674761,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene ChlorideMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Two samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1-Dichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.057ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2193420121,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CDPH MCLs, and none of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347752012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674721,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene ChlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1-Dichloroethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1-Dichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 3.2 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2193420121,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CDPH MCLs, and none of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2909720121,2,3-Trichlorobenzene | Dichlorodifluoromethane | Methyl chloride (Chloromethane) | cis-1,3-Dichloropropene | trans-1,3-Dichloropropene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Methyl Chloride, Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, and 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzeneconsistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298002010State Reviewed 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene | Dichlorodifluoromethane | Methyl chloride (Chloromethane) | cis-1,3-Dichloropropene | trans-1,3-DichloropropeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved1 One water sample was collected in 5/2002 at 1 location in the river (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  The sample was collected near the California Nevada Border.One water sample was collected. The water sample was collected in 5/2002 from the Nevada Border. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2203020121,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the California MCLs, and none of two water samples exceeded the National Recommended Criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347962012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674811,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2, 4-Trichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene is 70 ug/l for water and fish consumption.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2203020121,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the California MCLs, and none of two water samples exceeded the National Recommended Criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   348122012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674851,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2, 4-Trichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene is 5 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2203020121,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the California MCLs, and none of two water samples exceeded the National Recommended Criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2903220121,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | Bromobenzene | Cumene | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) | n-Butylbenzene | n-Propylbenzene | o-Xylene | sec-Butylbenzene | tert-Butylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, tert-Butylbenzene, and o-xylene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, tert-Butylbenzene, or o-xylene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, tert-Butylbenzene, or o-xylene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294232010State Reviewed 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | Bromobenzene | Cumene | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) | n-Butylbenzene | n-Propylbenzene | o-Xylene | sec-Butylbenzene | tert-ButylbenzeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the river (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, tert-Butylbenzene, or o-xylene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2170920121,2-Dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of eight water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms, and none of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76672010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | Benzene | Carbon tetrachlorideMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Seven samples were taken at 1 location on this segment of the Colorado River. One water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The six acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segement of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.001 mg/l Benzene, 0.0005 mg/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.0005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, and 0.001 mg/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2170920121,2-Dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of eight water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms, and none of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76472010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Seven samples were taken at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The six acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2170920121,2-Dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of eight water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms, and none of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467592012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70The seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria .1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2170920121,2-Dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of eight water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms, and none of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347822012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675071,2-DichloroethaneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichloroethane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-Dichloroethane criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.38 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2170920121,2-Dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of eight water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms, and none of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   271512010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Seven samples were taken at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The six acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2170920121,2-Dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of eight water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms, and none of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347662012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675031,2-DichloroethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichloroethane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-Dichloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 99 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2193620121,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is cessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the California MCLs, and none of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. Thses sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to sectio 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2193620121,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is cessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the California MCLs, and none of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. Thses sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to sectio 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347342012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675251,2-Dichloroethylene,-transMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-trans-dichlorethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for trans-1, 2-Dichloroethene is 10 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2193620121,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is cessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the California MCLs, and none of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. Thses sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to sectio 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   348182012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675211,2-Dichloroethylene,-transCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-trans-dichlorethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-trans-dichlorethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 140,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2196520121,2-Dichloropropane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of eight water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms, and none of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   348022012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675161,2-DichloropropaneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichloropropane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-Dichloropropane criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.52 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2196520121,2-Dichloropropane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of eight water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms, and none of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467592012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70The seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria .1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2196520121,2-Dichloropropane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of eight water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms, and none of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76472010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Seven samples were taken at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The six acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2196520121,2-Dichloropropane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of eight water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms, and none of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2196520121,2-Dichloropropane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of eight water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms, and none of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   271512010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Seven samples were taken at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The six acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2196520121,2-Dichloropropane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of eight water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms, and none of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347982012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675121,2-DichloropropaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichloropropane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-Dichloropropane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 39 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino3028420121-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene, or 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene, or 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene, or 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294392010State Reviewed 1-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-DimethylnaphthaleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the river (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene, or 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino3018420121-Methylphenanthrene | Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Phenanthrene, and 1-Methylphenanthrene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294382010State Reviewed 1-Methylphenanthrene | PhenanthreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the river (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2926120122-Chlorotoluene | 4-Chlorotoluene | p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, and p-Cymene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294322010State Reviewed 2-Chlorotoluene | 4-Chlorotoluene | p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the river (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2909820122-Hexanone | Acetone | Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) | Methyl isobutyl ketone (Methyl-2-Pentanone) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, and 2-Hexanone consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, or 2-Hexanone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, 2-Hexanonefor the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294602010State Reviewed 2-Hexanone | Acetone | Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) | Methyl isobutyl ketone (Methyl-2-Pentanone)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved1 One water sample was collected in 5/2002 at 1 location in the river (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, or 2-Hexanone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  A sample was collected near the California Nevada Border.One water sample was collected. The water sample was collected in 5/2002 from the Nevada Border. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2910220122-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29452 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were avaiable for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Naphthalene is avaiable in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the California State Notification Level criterion for naphthalene and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   316152012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) NaphthaleneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Zero of 2 samples exceeded the California State Notification Level criterion.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGWaters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents shall be present in amounts that adversely affect beneficial uses.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The California State Notification Level criterion for naphthalene is 0.017 mg/L.1.Drinking Water Notification Levels and Response LevelsData was collected at the following station 713CRNVBD (Colorado River at Nevada State Line).Samples were collected on 10/24/2005 and 5/2/2006. The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino2910220122-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29452 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were avaiable for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Naphthalene is avaiable in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the California State Notification Level criterion for naphthalene and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   294522010State Reviewed 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | NaphthaleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the river (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Naphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, or Acenaphthylene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218642012Acenaphthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760, which contains correct water quality objectives, because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   271502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218642012Acenaphthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760, which contains correct water quality objectives, because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218642012Acenaphthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760, which contains correct water quality objectives, because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   467602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria .1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110,000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21,000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17,000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2.600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene,2,600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 Endrin Aldehyde, 29,000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14,000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4,600 ug/l Nickel, 11,000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220782012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459232012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671330AldrinCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220782012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   348202012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167554AldrinMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Aldrin criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00013 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220782012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   348082012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167552AldrinCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe aldrin criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 3 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220782012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459242012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671331AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220782012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   348042012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167548AldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Aldrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220782012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76322010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220782012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   348242012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167558AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Aldrin criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 3 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217002012Aluminum Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351772012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167563AluminumMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Aluminum.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The California Secondary MCL for aluminum is 0.2 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations).1.Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR title 22 section 64449.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217002012Aluminum Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217002012Aluminum Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76772010State Reviewed Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino290562012Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, and Terbutryn consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, or Terbutryn for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, or Terbutryn for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294542010State Reviewed Ametryn | Prometryn | SimetrynWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved4 Four water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the river (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, or Terbutryn for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. A sample was not collected in 11/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218602012Anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings of LOE Nos. 27150 and 7650 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient because the sample size were not enough required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218602012Anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings of LOE Nos. 27150 and 7650 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient because the sample size were not enough required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   271502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220792012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCLs and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76322010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220792012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCLs and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459252012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671332ArsenicCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. One composite (6 fish per composite) was generated from one species: largemouth bass. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for arsenic in fish tissue is 0.0034 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. It is assumed that 10% of the total arsenic is present as inorganic arsenic. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220792012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCLs and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352222012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167578ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe dissolved arsenic criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for dissolved arsenic is 0.150 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220792012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCLs and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351802012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167568ArsenicMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for arsenic is 0.01 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220792012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCLs and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351792012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167565ArsenicCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe dissolved arsenic criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for dissolved arsenic is 0.150 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220792012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCLs and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76832010State Reviewed Arsenic | CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effect Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effect Criteria for the protection of aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 0.25 mg/l Arsenic, and 15 mg/l Copper (USFWS, 1998).1.Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220792012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCLs and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217652012Atrazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California MCLs and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352652012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167588AtrazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Atrazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Atrazine is 43 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217652012Atrazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California MCLs and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352642012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167587AtrazineCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Atrazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Atrazine is 43 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217652012Atrazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California MCLs and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76702010State Reviewed Atrazine | SimazineMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.001 mg/l Atrazine, and 0.004 mg/l Simazine (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. No sample was collected in October 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217652012Atrazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California MCLs and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352442012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167583AtrazineMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Atrazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for Atrazine is 1 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino292552012Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | Secbumeton Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29455 received a use rating of insufficient in last asssessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Prometon is available for current cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356882012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168096Prometon (Prometone)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Prometon.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon is 98 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino292552012Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | Secbumeton Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29455 received a use rating of insufficient in last asssessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Prometon is available for current cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   294552010State Reviewed Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | SecbumetonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved4 Four water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the river (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Atroton, Prometon, or Secbumeton for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. A sample was not collected in 11/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino292552012Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | Secbumeton Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29455 received a use rating of insufficient in last asssessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Prometon is available for current cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356872012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168095Prometon (Prometone)Cold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Prometon.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon is 98 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino290412012Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence isnecessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29444 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) is available in current assessemtn cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of zero samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Azinphos Methyl (Guthion) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   294442010State Reviewed Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the river (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Azinphos, methyl, or Azinphos, ethyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino290412012Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence isnecessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29444 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) is available in current assessemtn cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of zero samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Azinphos Methyl (Guthion) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353072012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167597Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Azinphos Methyl (Guthion) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is a maximum of 0.01 ug/l.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino290412012Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence isnecessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29444 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) is available in current assessemtn cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of zero samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Azinphos Methyl (Guthion) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352872012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167593Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)Cold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Azinphos Methyl (Guthion) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is a maximum of 0.01 ug/l.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218632012Benzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a sinlge line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353552012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167612BenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Benzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Benzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 71 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218632012Benzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a sinlge line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   349942012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167616BenzeneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Benzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for Benzene is 1 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218632012Benzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a sinlge line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   271512010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Seven samples were taken at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The six acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218632012Benzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a sinlge line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76672010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | Benzene | Carbon tetrachlorideMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Seven samples were taken at 1 location on this segment of the Colorado River. One water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The six acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segement of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.001 mg/l Benzene, 0.0005 mg/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.0005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, and 0.001 mg/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218632012Benzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a sinlge line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76472010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Seven samples were taken at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The six acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218632012Benzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a sinlge line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467592012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70The seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria .1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218612012Benzo(a)anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7660 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size reuired by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from these waters and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76602010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Seven samples were taken at 1 location on this segment of the Colorado River. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The six acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene, and 11 ug/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency 1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219612012Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7660 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino302852012Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | Terbufos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, and Terbufos consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294532010State Reviewed Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | TerbufosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the river (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220122012Benzo[b]fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7660 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from these waters and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76602010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Seven samples were taken at 1 location on this segment of the Colorado River. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The six acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene, and 11 ug/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency 1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305332012Bifenthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463402012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000002BifenthrinCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin. Six sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0006 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of bifenthrin does not exceed 0.0006 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.004 ug/L. Mixtures of bifenthrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305332012Bifenthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463412012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000003BifenthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin. Six sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0006 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of bifenthrin does not exceed 0.0006 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.004 ug/L. Mixtures of bifenthrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino290552012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, and Oxadiazon consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294502010State Reviewed Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | OxadiazonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the river (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305362012Boron Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the California State Notification Level criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   336252012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 24381BoronMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterNone60Zero of 6 samples exceeded the California State Notification Level criterion.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGWaters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents shall be present in amounts that adversely affect beneficial uses.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The California State Notification Level criterion for boron is 1 mg/L.1.Drinking Water Notification Levels and Response LevelsData was collected at the following station 713CRNVBD (Colorado River at Nevada State Line).Samples were collected on 10/24/2005, 5/2/2006, 5/7/2007, 10/22/2007, 4/21/2008 and 10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219242012Bromoform Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76472010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Seven samples were taken at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The six acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219242012Bromoform Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467592012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70The seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria .1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219242012Bromoform Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352262012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167634BromoformMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Bromoform.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Bromoform criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 4.3 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219242012Bromoform Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   271512010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Seven samples were taken at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The six acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219242012Bromoform Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352052012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167630BromoformCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Bromoform.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Bromoform criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 360 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217012012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCLs and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76292010State Reviewed CadmiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved50Five water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependant Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217012012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCLs and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217012012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCLs and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76912010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | SilverMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the following limits: 10 ug/l Cadmium, 50 ug/l Lead, 4 ug/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 100 ug/l Methoxychlor, and 50 ug/l Silver (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217012012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCLs and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328332012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21889CadmiumCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved60None of the 6 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for cadmium.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at station 713CRNVBD (Colorado River at Nevada State Line).Samples collected between 10/24/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217012012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCLs and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352282012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167638CadmiumMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Maximum Contaminant Level for cadmium in the Basin Plan is 0.005 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217012012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCLs and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459262012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671333CadmiumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for cadmium in fish tissue is 2.2 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219882012Carbon tetrachloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteira and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76472010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Seven samples were taken at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The six acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219882012Carbon tetrachloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteira and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76672010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | Benzene | Carbon tetrachlorideMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Seven samples were taken at 1 location on this segment of the Colorado River. One water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The six acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segement of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.001 mg/l Benzene, 0.0005 mg/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.0005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, and 0.001 mg/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219882012Carbon tetrachloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteira and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   271512010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Seven samples were taken at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The six acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219882012Carbon tetrachloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteira and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352722012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167649Carbon tetrachlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Carbon tetrachloride.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Carbon tetrachloride criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 4.4 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219882012Carbon tetrachloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteira and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352922012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167653Carbon tetrachlorideMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Carbon tetrachloride.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for Carbon tetrachloride is 0.5 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219882012Carbon tetrachloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteira and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467592012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70The seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria .1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino292832012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No.29448 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines are available for certain pollutants in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion, and none of six water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355362012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168059ParathionCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The criterion continuous concentration for Parathion, Ethyl is 0.013 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino292832012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No.29448 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines are available for certain pollutants in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion, and none of six water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353592012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167999MethidathionCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Methidathion.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion is 0.86 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino292832012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No.29448 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines are available for certain pollutants in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion, and none of six water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168000MethidathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Methidathion.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion is 0.86 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino292832012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No.29448 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines are available for certain pollutants in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion, and none of six water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   294482010State Reviewed Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | TokuthionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the river (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino292832012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No.29448 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines are available for certain pollutants in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion, and none of six water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356072012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167972MalathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The UC Davis Criteria for Malathion for the protection of aquatic organisms is a 4 day average of 0.028 ug/L.1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: l. Organophosphate insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:1-48.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino292832012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No.29448 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines are available for certain pollutants in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion, and none of six water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355882012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167969MalathionCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The UC Davis Criteria for Malathion for the protection of aquatic organisms is a 4 day average of 0.028 ug/L.1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: l. Organophosphate insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:1-48.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino292832012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No.29448 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines are available for certain pollutants in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion, and none of six water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355802012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168070Methyl ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion is 0.08 ug/L.1.Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Methyl to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River SystemData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino292832012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No.29448 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines are available for certain pollutants in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion, and none of six water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355772012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168067Methyl ParathionCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion is 0.08 ug/L.1.Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Methyl to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River SystemData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino292832012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No.29448 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines are available for certain pollutants in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion, and none of six water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion. These sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355562012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168062ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The criterion continuous concentration for Parathion, Ethyl is 0.013 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220802012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   331742012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 24246ChlordaneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00The reporting limit for all 6 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria and thus the data were not used in this assessment.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe total chlordane criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00057 ug/L. This value corresponds to total chlordane, eg., the sum of cis-chlordane, trans-chlordane, cis-nonachlor, trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane. (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at station 713CRNVBD Colorado River at Nevada State LineSamples collected between 10/24/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220802012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220802012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76322010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220802012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329932012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23417ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60None of the 6 samples exceeded the criterion continuous concentration for chlordane (total). Total chlordane is assessed as the sum of cis-chlordane, trans-chlordane, cis-nonachlor, trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe chlordane criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0043 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at station 713CRNVBD Colorado River at Nevada State LineSamples collected between 10/24/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220802012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459292012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671336ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220802012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459282012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671335ChlordaneCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220802012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459272012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671334ChlordaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino290422012Chlorfenvinphos | Chlorpyrifos, methyl | Cuomaphos | Dicrotophos | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | Fenchlorphos | Leptophos | Merphos | Mevinphos | Tetrachlorvinphos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, and Chlorpyrifos Methyl consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294492010State Reviewed Chlorfenvinphos | Chlorpyrifos, methyl | Cuomaphos | Dicrotophos | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | Fenchlorphos | Leptophos | Merphos | Mevinphos | TetrachlorvinphosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the river (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos, Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220812012Chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the California secondary MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   331042012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 24340ChlorideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60None of the 6 samples exceeded the criteria of 230 mg/L.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Chloride criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 230000 ug/L (230 mg/L)(USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006).1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology  Samples were collected at station713CRNVBD (Colorado River at Nevada State Line).Samples were collected on 10/24/2005, 5/2/2006, 5/7/2007, 10/22/2007, 4/21/2008, and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220812012Chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the California secondary MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76772010State Reviewed Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino223262012Chlorobenzene (mono) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria .1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110,000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21,000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17,000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2.600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene,2,600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 Endrin Aldehyde, 29,000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14,000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4,600 ug/l Nickel, 11,000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino223262012Chlorobenzene (mono) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353132012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167658Chlorobenzene (mono)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Chlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 21,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino223262012Chlorobenzene (mono) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353172012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167662Chlorobenzene (mono)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for monochlorobenzene is 70 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino223262012Chlorobenzene (mono) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino223262012Chlorobenzene (mono) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino223262012Chlorobenzene (mono) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   271502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305392012Chlorodibromomethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352162012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167734ChlorodibromomethaneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Dibromochloromethane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Dibromochloromethane criteria is 0.401 ug/L for the protection of human health from consumption of water and organisms (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305402012Chloroform Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353382012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167667ChloroformCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chloroform.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Chloroform criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 470 ug/L (The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria 2009).1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305402012Chloroform Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350012012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167671ChloroformMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chloroform.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for total trihalomethanes is 80 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305352012Chlorpyrifos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351862012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167673ChlorpyrifosCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples total were collected. None of the samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005).Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305352012Chlorpyrifos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459302012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671337ChlorpyrifosCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for chlorpyrifos in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305352012Chlorpyrifos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351892012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167677ChlorpyrifosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples total were collected. None of the samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005).Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218662012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   339232012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25781ChromiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60None of the 6 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for chromium III or the criteria for chromium VI.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each chromium III sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. The criterion continuous concentration (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for chromium VI is 11 ug/L and is not hardness dependent.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 713CRNVBD (Colorado River at Nevada State Line).Samples collected between 10/24/05 and 10/28/08. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218662012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   343022012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 26441ChromiumMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60None of the 6 samples exceeded the MCL for total Chromium.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Department of Public Health's Maximum Contaminate Level (MCL) in drinking water for Total Chromium is 0.05mg/L or 50ug/L.1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Samples collected at stations 713CRNVBD (Colorado River at Nevada State Line).Samples collected between 10/24/05 and 10/28/08. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218662012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218662012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76322010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217772012Chrysene (C1-C4) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7660 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76602010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Seven samples were taken at 1 location on this segment of the Colorado River. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The six acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene, and 11 ug/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency 1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220822012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California secondary MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352752012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167699CopperMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Copper.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The California Secondary MCL for copper is 1.0 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations).1.Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR title 22 section 64449.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220822012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California secondary MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76832010State Reviewed Arsenic | CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effect Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effect Criteria for the protection of aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 0.25 mg/l Arsenic, and 15 mg/l Copper (USFWS, 1998).1.Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220822012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California secondary MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76772010State Reviewed Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220822012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California secondary MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76162010State Reviewed CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220822012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California secondary MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328552012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21896Copper, DissolvedCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved60None of the 6 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for copper.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at station 713CRNVBD (Colorado River at Nevada State Line).Samples collected between 10/24/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305412012Cyanazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353202012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167710CyanazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cyanazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Cyanazine is 4.8 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305412012Cyanazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353192012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167709CyanazineCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cyanazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Cyanazine is 4.8 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino321202012Cyfluthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000010CyfluthrinCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total. Six sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.00005 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of cyfluthrin does not exceed 0.00005 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.0003 ug/L. Mixtures of cyfluthrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino321202012Cyfluthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463722012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000011CyfluthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total. Six sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.00005 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of cyfluthrin does not exceed 0.00005 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.0003 ug/L. Mixtures of cyfluthrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino321212012Cyhalothrin, Lambda Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463322012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000018Cyhalothrin, LambdaCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, total. Six sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0005 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of lambda-cyhalothrin does not exceed 0.0005 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.001 ug/L. Mixtures of lambda-cyhalothrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino321212012Cyhalothrin, Lambda Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463332012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000019Cyhalothrin, LambdaWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, total. Six sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0005 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of lambda-cyhalothrin does not exceed 0.0005 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.001 ug/L. Mixtures of lambda-cyhalothrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino321222012Cypermethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463552012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000026CypermethrinCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total. Six sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0002 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of cypermethrin does not exceed 0.0002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.001 ug/L. Mixtures of cypermethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino321222012Cypermethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463562012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000027CypermethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total. Six sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0002 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of cypermethrin does not exceed 0.0002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.001 ug/L. Mixtures of cypermethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218212012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   345282012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 26190DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00The method detection limit for all 6 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 4,4'-DDE criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00022 ug/L (USEPA Nationally Recommended Criteria, 2006).1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology  Samples collected at stations 713CRNVBD (Colorado River at Nevada State Line).Samples collected between 10/24/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218212012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   345252012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 26187DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Cold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00The detection limit for DDT(o,p) is 0.001 ug/l, and the reporting limit for that is 0.002 ug/l. Since the WQS is smaller than the reporting limit, none of samples can be counted. In addition the detection limit for DDT(p,p') is 0.002 ug/l and the reporting limit is 0.005 ug/l, none of the samples can be counted. The water body was assessed for the sum of DDT(o,p') and DDT(p,p').1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 4,4' DDT criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.001 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 713CRNVBD (Colorado River at Nevada State Line).Samples collected between 10/24/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218212012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   345262012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 26188DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00The method detection limit for all 6 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 4,4' DDT criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00022 ug/L (USEPA Nationally Recommended Criteria, 2006).1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology  Samples collected at stations 713CRNVBD (Colorado River at Nevada State Line).Samples collected between 10/24/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218212012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76412010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) for pp'-DDT of 1.1 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218212012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   345272012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 26189DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00The method detection limit for all 6 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 4,4'-DDD criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00031 ug/L (USEPA Nationally Recommended Criteria, 2006).1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology  Samples collected at stations 713CRNVBD (Colorado River at Nevada State Line).Samples collected between 10/24/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305422012Dacthal Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353422012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167716DacthalMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Dacthal.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for dacthal (DCPA) for the consumption of water and fish is 0.008 ug/L.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305422012Dacthal Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350042012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167720DacthalWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Dacthal.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal 6600 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305422012Dacthal Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350032012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167719DacthalCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Dacthal.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal 6600 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305432012Deltamethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life evaluation criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463282012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000035DeltamethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC) of 0.02 ug/L, which is the geometric mean of the LOEC and NOEC, as determined in a 280 day toxicity study with the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database)1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305432012Deltamethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life evaluation criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463272012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000034DeltamethrinCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC) of 0.02 ug/L, which is the geometric mean of the LOEC and NOEC, as determined in a 280 day toxicity study with the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database)1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217672012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Games (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459342012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671341DiazinonCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for diazinon in fish tissue is 1,500 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217672012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Games (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351952012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167729DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Finlayson, 2004).1.Water quality for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and GameData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217672012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Games (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76872010State Reviewed DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDFG Hazardous Assessment Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Fish and Games (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.16 ug/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and GameSamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217672012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Games (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351922012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167725DiazinonCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Finlayson, 2004).1.Water quality for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and GameData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218622012Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7660 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76602010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Seven samples were taken at 1 location on this segment of the Colorado River. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The six acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene, and 11 ug/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency 1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino291042012Dibenzothiophene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Dibenzothiophene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there is no appropriate evaluation guideline, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294592010State Reviewed DibenzothiopheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved4 Four water samples were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the river (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 10/2002 through 5/2004 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino249422012Dichlorobromomethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of eight water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76472010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Seven samples were taken at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The six acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino249422012Dichlorobromomethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of eight water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351852012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167625DichlorobromomethaneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Bromodichloromethane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Bromodichloromethane criteria is 0.56 ug/L for the protection of human health from consumption of water and organisms (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino249422012Dichlorobromomethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of eight water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   271512010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Seven samples were taken at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The six acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219382012Dichloromethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Both lines of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76442010State Reviewed Dichloromethane | Methyl bromideMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10One water sample was collected in 5/2002 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. This sample did not exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 48 ug/l Methyl Bromide, and 5 ug/l Dichloromethane (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  A sample was collected near the California Nevada Border.One water sample was collected. A water sample was collected in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219382012Dichloromethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Both lines of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   271562010State Reviewed Dichloromethane | Methyl bromideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10One water sample was collected in 5/2002 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. This sample did not exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 48 ug/l Methyl Bromide, and 5 ug/l Dichloromethane (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  A sample was collected near the California Nevada Border.One water sample was collected. A water sample was collected in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino321242012Dichlorvos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life evaluation criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352402012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167740DichlorvosCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Dichlorvos.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Dichlorvos is 7.2 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino321242012Dichlorvos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life evaluation criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352572012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167741DichlorvosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Dichlorvos.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Dichlorvos is 7.2 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217692012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76322010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217692012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352812012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167749DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Dieldrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217692012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353012012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167753DieldrinCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Dieldrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217692012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353022012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167756DieldrinMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Dieldrin criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217692012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353242012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167762DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Dieldrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217692012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459352012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671342DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217692012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459362012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671343DieldrinCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217692012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459372012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671344DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino321252012Dimethoate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life evaluation criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350082012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167773DimethoateCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Dimethoate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dimethoate is 43 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino321252012Dimethoate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life evaluation criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350092012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167774DimethoateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Dimethoate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dimethoate is 43 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305442012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded theUSEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, and none of one fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459392012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671346EndosulfanCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Endosulfan concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305442012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded theUSEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, and none of one fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459402012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671347EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Endosulfan concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305442012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded theUSEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, and none of one fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459382012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671345EndosulfanCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in fish tissue is 13,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305442012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded theUSEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, and none of one fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   330892012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 24188EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60None of the 6 samples exceeded the criteria.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe endosulfan criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L. This value corresponds to the sum of alpha-endosulfan and beta-endosulfan (USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006).1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology  Samples were collected at station713CRNVBD (Colorado River at Nevada State Line).Samples were collected on 10/24/2005, 5/2/2006, 5/7/2007, 10/22/2007, 4/21/2008, and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218502012Endosulfan sulfate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350552012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167822Endosulfan sulfateMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan sulfate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan Sulfate criteria for endosulfan sulfate to protect human health for waters that include the designated use of MUN is 110 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218502012Endosulfan sulfate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria .1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110,000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21,000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17,000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2.600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene,2,600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 Endrin Aldehyde, 29,000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14,000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4,600 ug/l Nickel, 11,000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218502012Endosulfan sulfate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   271502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218502012Endosulfan sulfate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350512012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167818Endosulfan sulfateCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan sulfate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan Sulfate criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218502012Endosulfan sulfate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219662012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 7673 and LOE No. 7650 and 35065 are not combined because two different water quality objectives are used to assess dataset inspite of the same beneficial use. Thus, LOE No. 7673 received a use rating of insufficient information. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria .1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110,000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21,000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17,000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2.600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene,2,600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 Endrin Aldehyde, 29,000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14,000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4,600 ug/l Nickel, 11,000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219662012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 7673 and LOE No. 7650 and 35065 are not combined because two different water quality objectives are used to assess dataset inspite of the same beneficial use. Thus, LOE No. 7673 received a use rating of insufficient information. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459432012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671350EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219662012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 7673 and LOE No. 7650 and 35065 are not combined because two different water quality objectives are used to assess dataset inspite of the same beneficial use. Thus, LOE No. 7673 received a use rating of insufficient information. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459422012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671349EndrinCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219662012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 7673 and LOE No. 7650 and 35065 are not combined because two different water quality objectives are used to assess dataset inspite of the same beneficial use. Thus, LOE No. 7673 received a use rating of insufficient information. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459412012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671348EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219662012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 7673 and LOE No. 7650 and 35065 are not combined because two different water quality objectives are used to assess dataset inspite of the same beneficial use. Thus, LOE No. 7673 received a use rating of insufficient information. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350712012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167840EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.036 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219662012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 7673 and LOE No. 7650 and 35065 are not combined because two different water quality objectives are used to assess dataset inspite of the same beneficial use. Thus, LOE No. 7673 received a use rating of insufficient information. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350652012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167834EndrinMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endrin criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.76 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219662012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 7673 and LOE No. 7650 and 35065 are not combined because two different water quality objectives are used to assess dataset inspite of the same beneficial use. Thus, LOE No. 7673 received a use rating of insufficient information. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350642012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167831EndrinCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.036 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219662012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 7673 and LOE No. 7650 and 35065 are not combined because two different water quality objectives are used to assess dataset inspite of the same beneficial use. Thus, LOE No. 7673 received a use rating of insufficient information. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167827EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219662012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 7673 and LOE No. 7650 and 35065 are not combined because two different water quality objectives are used to assess dataset inspite of the same beneficial use. Thus, LOE No. 7673 received a use rating of insufficient information. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76322010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219662012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 7673 and LOE No. 7650 and 35065 are not combined because two different water quality objectives are used to assess dataset inspite of the same beneficial use. Thus, LOE No. 7673 received a use rating of insufficient information. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219662012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 7673 and LOE No. 7650 and 35065 are not combined because two different water quality objectives are used to assess dataset inspite of the same beneficial use. Thus, LOE No. 7673 received a use rating of insufficient information. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219662012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 7673 and LOE No. 7650 and 35065 are not combined because two different water quality objectives are used to assess dataset inspite of the same beneficial use. Thus, LOE No. 7673 received a use rating of insufficient information. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   271502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino222532012Endrin aldehyde Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       NNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria .1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110,000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21,000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17,000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2.600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene,2,600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 Endrin Aldehyde, 29,000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14,000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4,600 ug/l Nickel, 11,000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino222532012Endrin aldehyde Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       NNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350832012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167852Endrin aldehydeCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin Aldehyde.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endrin Aldehyde criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino222532012Endrin aldehyde Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       NNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   271502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino222532012Endrin aldehyde Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       NNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219542012Enterococcus Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings of LOE Nos. 7610 and 7607 arechanged from fully supporting to sufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 4 samples exceeded the Basin Plan Enterococcus water quality objective that protects RECI beneficial uses, and none of 4 samples exceeded the Basin Plan Enterococcus water quality objective that protect RECII beneficial uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76102010State Reviewed EnterococcusNon-Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Four water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In the Colorado River the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 305 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada BorderFour water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 from the Nevada Border. Samples were generally collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219542012Enterococcus Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings of LOE Nos. 7610 and 7607 arechanged from fully supporting to sufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 4 samples exceeded the Basin Plan Enterococcus water quality objective that protects RECI beneficial uses, and none of 4 samples exceeded the Basin Plan Enterococcus water quality objective that protect RECII beneficial uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76072010State Reviewed EnterococcusWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal41Four water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, 1 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedance was found in a sample collected on 11/03/2003 from near the Nevada Border (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In the Colorado River the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 61 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 from the Nevada Border. Samples were generally collected in May and October. The exceedance was found in a sample collected on 11/03/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217682012Escherichia coli (E. coli) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle.However, use ratings of LOE Nos. 7694 and 7702 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 4 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan E. coli water quality objectives that protect RECI and RECII beneficial uses and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76942010State Reviewed Escherichia coli (E. coli)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Four water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In the Colorado River the maximum allowable E. coli density is 235 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the Caliornia Nevada Border.Four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 from the Nevada Border. Samples were generally collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217682012Escherichia coli (E. coli) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle.However, use ratings of LOE Nos. 7694 and 7702 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 4 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan E. coli water quality objectives that protect RECI and RECII beneficial uses and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   77022010State Reviewed Escherichia coli (E. coli)Non-Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Four water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In the Colorado River the maximum allowable E. coli density is 1175 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 from the Nevada Border. Samples were generally collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino321262012Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life evaluation criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463482012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000042Esfenvalerate/FenvalerateCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.13 ug/L, as determined in a 96 hour toxicity test using the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database)1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino321262012Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life evaluation criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463492012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000043Esfenvalerate/FenvalerateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.13 ug/L, as determined in a 96 hour toxicity test using the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database)1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217102012Ethylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351022012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167859EthylbenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Ethylbenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Ethylbenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 29,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217102012Ethylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   271502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217102012Ethylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217102012Ethylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217102012Ethylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351192012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167863EthylbenzeneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Ethylbenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for Ethylbenzene is 300 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217102012Ethylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria .1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110,000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21,000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17,000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2.600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene,2,600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 Endrin Aldehyde, 29,000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14,000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4,600 ug/l Nickel, 11,000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305452012Fenpropathrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of three water samples exceeded the USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463702012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000050FenpropathrinCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal30Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin, 2.2 ug/L, is the median lethal concentration (LC50) as determined in a 96 hour toxicity test using the bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database)1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/22/2007-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305452012Fenpropathrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of three water samples exceeded the USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463712012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000051FenpropathrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal30Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin, 2.2 ug/L, is the median lethal concentration (LC50) as determined in a 96 hour toxicity test using the bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database)1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/22/2007-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217112012Fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and all other information remains the same. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   271502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217112012Fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and all other information remains the same. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   467602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria .1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110,000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21,000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17,000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2.600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene,2,600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 Endrin Aldehyde, 29,000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14,000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4,600 ug/l Nickel, 11,000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217112012Fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and all other information remains the same. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217122012Fluorene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   467602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria .1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110,000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21,000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17,000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2.600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene,2,600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 Endrin Aldehyde, 29,000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14,000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4,600 ug/l Nickel, 11,000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217122012Fluorene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   271502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217122012Fluorene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino216982012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350962012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167921HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino216982012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350922012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167917HeptachlorMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00021 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino216982012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350912012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167915HeptachlorCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino216982012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino216982012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76322010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino216982012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351592012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167911HeptachlorCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00021 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino216982012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459472012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671354HeptachlorCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino216982012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459482012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671355HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino216992012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351322012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167935Heptachlor epoxideMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor Epoxide criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00010 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino216992012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351312012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167933Heptachlor epoxideCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor Epoxide criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino216992012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351272012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167929Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor Epoxide criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00011 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino216992012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino216992012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76322010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino216992012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351482012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167939Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor Epoxide criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino216992012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459512012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671358Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino216992012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459502012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671357Heptachlor epoxideCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino216992012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459492012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671356Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in fish tissue is 0.93 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking WaterData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220152012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the California MCL, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355232012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167951Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Hexachlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00075 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220152012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the California MCL, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671359Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobenzene. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue is 2.8 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220152012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the California MCL, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220152012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the California MCL, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351682012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167947Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Hexachlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00077 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220132012Hexachlorobutadiene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355652012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167960HexachlorobutadieneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobutadiene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Hexachlorobutadiene criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.44 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220132012Hexachlorobutadiene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355452012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167956HexachlorobutadieneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobutadiene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Hexachlorobutadiene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 50 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220132012Hexachlorobutadiene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   271512010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Seven samples were taken at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The six acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220132012Hexachlorobutadiene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76472010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Seven samples were taken at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The six acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220132012Hexachlorobutadiene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467592012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70The seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria .1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino290692012Hydroxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Hydroxide consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of Hydroxiden for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fractions of Hydroxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294612010State Reviewed HydroxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved1 One water sample was collected in 5/2002 at 1 location in the river (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for Hydroxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  A sample was collected near the California Nevada Border.One water sample was collected. The water sample was collected in 5/2002 from the Nevada Border. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219622012Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7660 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met.Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76602010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Seven samples were taken at 1 location on this segment of the Colorado River. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The six acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene, and 11 ug/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency 1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217782012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing statusThree lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76912010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | SilverMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the following limits: 10 ug/l Cadmium, 50 ug/l Lead, 4 ug/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 100 ug/l Methoxychlor, and 50 ug/l Silver (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217782012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing statusThree lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76352010State Reviewed Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR hardness dependent criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Lead,Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217782012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing statusThree lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329182012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21921LeadCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved60None of the 6 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for lead.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 713CRNVBD (Colorado River at Nevada State Line)Samples collected between 10/24/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220162012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351032012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167890Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Cold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe gamma-BHC (Lindane) criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.95 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220162012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351042012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167893Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe BHC, gamma(Lindane) criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.019 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220162012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459442012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671351Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in fish tissue is 4.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220162012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459452012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671352Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Cold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220162012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459462012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671353Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220162012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350872012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167886Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe HCH, Gamma (Lindane) criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of organisms is 0.063 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220162012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76912010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | SilverMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the following limits: 10 ug/l Cadmium, 50 ug/l Lead, 4 ug/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 100 ug/l Methoxychlor, and 50 ug/l Silver (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220162012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220162012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351232012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167899Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe gamma-BHC (Lindane) criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.95 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220832012Manganese Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California secondary MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76772010State Reviewed Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220832012Manganese Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California secondary MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356282012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167978ManganeseMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Manganese.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The California Secondary MCL for manganese is 0.05 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations).1.Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR title 22 section 64449.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220272012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220272012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   271502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220272012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356542012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167989MercuryMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe mercury criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms for mercury is 0.050 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220272012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459612012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671360MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. Eight composites were generated from one species: largemouth bass. Composites comprised of 1 fish per composite for 7 composites and 1 fish per composite for 1 composite. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish (150 - 500 mm; fillet wet weight) is 0.20 mg/kg.1.Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220272012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria .1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110,000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21,000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17,000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2.600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene,2,600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 Endrin Aldehyde, 29,000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14,000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4,600 ug/l Nickel, 11,000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220272012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220272012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76382010State Reviewed MercuryWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NRWQC criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.4 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2002).1.National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220272012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356332012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167983MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Mercury criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.051 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217642012Methoxychlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status..Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76262010State Reviewed MethoxychlorMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USEPA criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006USEPA Drinking Water Criteria of 40 ug/l for the protection of drinking water uses (USEPA, 2002).1.National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217642012Methoxychlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status..Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217642012Methoxychlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status..Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76912010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | SilverMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the following limits: 10 ug/l Cadmium, 50 ug/l Lead, 4 ug/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 100 ug/l Methoxychlor, and 50 ug/l Silver (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217642012Methoxychlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status..Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355292012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168005MethoxychlorCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Methoxychlor.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The criterion continuous concentration for Methoxychlor is 0.3 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217642012Methoxychlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status..Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355302012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168007MethoxychlorMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Methoxychlor.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for Methoxychlor is 30 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217642012Methoxychlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status..Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355522012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168012MethoxychlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Methoxychlor.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The criterion continuous concentration for Methoxychlor is 0.3 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217572012Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the California secondary MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217572012Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the California secondary MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76772010State Reviewed Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217572012Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the California secondary MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356382012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168035Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for MTBE.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The California Secondary MCL for MTBE is 0.005 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations).1.Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR title 22 section 64449.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219532012Methyl bromide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Both lines of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76442010State Reviewed Dichloromethane | Methyl bromideMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10One water sample was collected in 5/2002 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. This sample did not exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 48 ug/l Methyl Bromide, and 5 ug/l Dichloromethane (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  A sample was collected near the California Nevada Border.One water sample was collected. A water sample was collected in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219532012Methyl bromide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Both lines of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   271562010State Reviewed Dichloromethane | Methyl bromideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10One water sample was collected in 5/2002 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. This sample did not exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 48 ug/l Methyl Bromide, and 5 ug/l Dichloromethane (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  A sample was collected near the California Nevada Border.One water sample was collected. A water sample was collected in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305462012Mirex Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3.One composite fish tissue sample and six water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Thus, staff cannot make a decision to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355752012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168020MirexWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The criterion continuous concentration for Mirex is 0.001 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305462012Mirex Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3.One composite fish tissue sample and six water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Thus, staff cannot make a decision to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355722012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168016MirexCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The criterion continuous concentration for Mirex is 0.001 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305462012Mirex Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3.One composite fish tissue sample and six water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Thus, staff cannot make a decision to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459622012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671361MirexCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Mirex. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in fish tissue is 0.28 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217662012Molinate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356152012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168029MolinateMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Molinate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for Molinate is 20 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217662012Molinate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356142012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168028MolinateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Molinate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Molinate is 0.6 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217662012Molinate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356132012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168027MolinateCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Molinate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Molinate is 0.6 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217662012Molinate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino222632012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino222632012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329392012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21929NickelCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved60None of the 6 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for nickel.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at station 713CRNVBD (Colorado River at Nevada State Line).Samples collected between 10/24/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino222632012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356612012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168040NickelCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Nickel criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 4,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino222632012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356812012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168045NickelMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for nickel is 0.1 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino222632012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria .1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110,000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21,000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17,000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2.600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene,2,600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 Endrin Aldehyde, 29,000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14,000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4,600 ug/l Nickel, 11,000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino222632012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino222632012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76352010State Reviewed Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR hardness dependent criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Lead,Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino222632012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   271502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218582012Nitrate as Nitrate (NO3) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7673 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305482012Nitrate | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Nitrate as N, Nitrate/Nitrite as N, and Nitrogen, ammonia. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   345702012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 26203Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60None of the 6 samples exceed the water USEPA Temperature and pH-Dependent values of the CCC (Chronic Criterion) for Fish Early Life Stages Present for ammonia. 3 of the 6 data samples are reported as Non-Detect (ND). These 3 ND values are less than or equal to the water quality standard, the value will be considered as meeting the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGWater Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin Region (RWQCB 2006): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There is no water quality objective for ammonia in the Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin. Instead, the USEPA criteria for ammonia was used as Temperature and pH-Dependent Values of the CCC (Chronic Criterion)for Fish Early Life Stages Present.1.1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia  Sample was collected at 713CRNVBD (Colorado River at Nevada State Line).Samples collected between 10/24/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305482012Nitrate | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Nitrate as N, Nitrate/Nitrite as N, and Nitrogen, ammonia. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353662012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168053NitrateMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterNone60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate as N.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for nitrate (as N) is 10 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305482012Nitrate | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Nitrate as N, Nitrate/Nitrite as N, and Nitrogen, ammonia. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355322012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168055Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterNone60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) is 10 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218592012Nitrogen, Nitrite Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355342012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168057NitriteMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterNone60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrite as N.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for nitrite (as N) is 1.0 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218592012Nitrogen, Nitrite Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino292752012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, and Trichlorfon consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294512010State Reviewed Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | TrichloronateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the river (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305472012Oxygen, Dissolved | Temperature, water Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective for dissolved oxygen, and none of six water samples exceeded the evaluation guidelines for temperature . These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354072012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168176Temperature, waterCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Water Temperature.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNatural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129).1.Fish introductions in CA: History and impact on native fishes. Davis, CA: University of CA, DavisData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305472012Oxygen, Dissolved | Temperature, water Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective for dissolved oxygen, and none of six water samples exceeded the evaluation guidelines for temperature . These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   323122012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21669Oxygen, DissolvedCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Zero of the six samples exceeded the water quality objective for dissolved oxygen.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGFrom the Colorado River Water Quality Control Plan 'The dissolved Oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below the following minimum levels at any time: for waters designated as COLD-8.0 mg/L.'1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  The samples were collected at station 713CRNVBD - Colorado River at Nevada State Line.The samples were collected during October 2005, May 2006, May 2007, October 2007, April 2008, and October 2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217072012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the California MCLs, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217072012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the California MCLs, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329942012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23443PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00The method detection limit for all the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe total PCB criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00017 ug/L. This value corresponds to total PCBs, eg., the sum of all congener or isomer or homolog or aroclor analyses (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at station 713CRNVBD (Colorado River at Nevada State Line).Samples were collected on 10/24/2005, 5/2/2006, 5/7/2007, 10/22/2007, 4/21/2008, and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217072012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the California MCLs, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   334132012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23412PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Cold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20None of the 2 samples exceeded the criterion continuous concentration for total PCB. The water body was assessed for the 3 aroclors that were contained within the data set and they include aroclor 1248, aroclor 1254, and aroclor 1260.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe total PCB criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.014 ug/L. This value corresponds to the sum of aroclors 1242, 1254, 1221, 1232, 1248, 1260, and 1016 (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at station 713CRNVBD (Colorado River at Nevada State Line).Samples collected between 4/21/2008 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217072012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the California MCLs, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459712012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671362PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for polychlorinated biphenyls in fish tissue is 2.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217072012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the California MCLs, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459722012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671363PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Cold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total PCB concentration of 500 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) 2.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino217072012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the California MCLs, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459732012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671364PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total PCB concentration of 500 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218222012Perchlorate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76132010State Reviewed PerchlorateMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterNone70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 0.006 mg/l for the protection of human health (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218222012Perchlorate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356002012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168075PerchlorateMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterNone60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Perchlorate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for Perchlorate is 6 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino321232012Permethrin, total Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464552012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000059Permethrin, totalWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total. Four sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.002 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of permethrin does not exceed 0.002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.01 ug/L. Mixtures of permethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/22/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino321232012Permethrin, total Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464542012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000058Permethrin, totalCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total. Four sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.002 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of permethrin does not exceed 0.002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.01 ug/L. Mixtures of permethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/22/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino290702012Pheophytin a Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.7.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Pheophytin a consistent with Listing Policy section 3.7.1. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there is no appropriate evaluation guideline, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294622010State Reviewed Pheophytin aWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved1 One water sample was collected in 5/2002 at 1 location in the river (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  A sample was collected near the California Nevada Border.One water sample was collected. The water sample was collected in 5/2002 from the Nevada Border. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino321272012Phorate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life evaluation criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356202012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168080PhorateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Phorate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Phorate is 2 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino321272012Phorate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life evaluation criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356192012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168079PhorateCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Phorate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Phorate is 2 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino321282012Phosmet Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life evaluation criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168088PhosmetWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Phosmet.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet is 5.6 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino321282012Phosmet Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life evaluation criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356442012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168087PhosmetCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Phosmet.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet is 5.6 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino321292012Prometryn Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life evaluation criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355382012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168103PrometrynCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Prometryn.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometryn is 1 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino321292012Prometryn Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life evaluation criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355392012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168104PrometrynWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Prometryn.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometryn is 1 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino290672012Propazine | Terbuthylazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29456 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for propazine is available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Propazine and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   294562010State Reviewed Propazine | TerbuthylazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved4 Four water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the river (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Propazine, or Terbuthylazine for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. A sample was not collected in 11/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino290672012Propazine | Terbuthylazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29456 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for propazine is available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Propazine and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168111PropazineCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Propazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Propazine is 25 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino290672012Propazine | Terbuthylazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29456 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for propazine is available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Propazine and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355642012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168112PropazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Propazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Propazine is 25 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220282012Pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   467602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria .1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110,000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21,000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17,000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2.600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene,2,600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 Endrin Aldehyde, 29,000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14,000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4,600 ug/l Nickel, 11,000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220282012Pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   271502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220282012Pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino291052012Salinity Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Salinity consistent with Listing Policy section 3.2. No evaluation guideline for Salinity for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there is no appropriate evaluation guideline, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for Salinity for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294632010State Reviewed SalinityWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved3 Three water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2003 at 1 location in the river (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for Salinity for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Three water samples were collected. The water sample were collected in 5/2002, 10,2002, and 5/2003 from the Nevada Border. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219452012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA evaluation guideline. But this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459822012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671365SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenium in fish tissue is 7.4 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A background dietary consumption rate of 0.114 mg/day is applied for this micronutrient.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219452012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA evaluation guideline. But this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220842012Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76352010State Reviewed Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR hardness dependent criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Lead,Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220842012Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355852012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168118SilverMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Silver.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The California Secondary MCL for silver is 0.1 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations).1.Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR title 22 section 64449.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220842012Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76772010State Reviewed Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220842012Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21936SilverCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved60None of the 6 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for silver.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion maximum concentrations (1-hour average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at station 713CRNVBD (Colorado River at Nevada State Line).Samples collected between 10/24/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220842012Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76912010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | SilverMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the following limits: 10 ug/l Cadmium, 50 ug/l Lead, 4 ug/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 100 ug/l Methoxychlor, and 50 ug/l Silver (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219872012Simazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356052012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168122SimazineCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Simazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Simazine is 90 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219872012Simazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76702010State Reviewed Atrazine | SimazineMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.001 mg/l Atrazine, and 0.004 mg/l Simazine (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. No sample was collected in October 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219872012Simazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356062012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168123SimazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Simazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Simazine is 90 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219872012Simazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356242012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168126SimazineMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Simazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for Simazine is 4 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218342012Specific Conductance Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California secondary MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352562012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167695Specific ConductivityMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterNone60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 6 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Conductivity(Us).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The California Secondary MCL for specific conductance is 1,600 uS/cm (Title 22 California Code of Regulations).1.Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR title 22 section 64449.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218342012Specific Conductance Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California secondary MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76802010State Reviewed Specific ConductanceMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven measurements were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total measurements, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 1600 umhos for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsMeasurements were collected near the Califonria Nevada Border.Seven water quality measurements were collected. Water quality measurements were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Measurements were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino291032012Streptococcus, fecal Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess fecal Streptococcus consistent with Listing Policy section 3.3. No evaluation guideline for the total density of fecal Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there is no appropriate evaluation guideline, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the total density of fecal Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294582010State Reviewed Streptococcus, fecalWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal4 Four water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the river (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. A sample was not collected in 11/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218352012Styrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. This line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. This sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 water sample exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76542010State Reviewed Styrene | Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10One water sample was collected in 5/2002 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. This sample did not exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 100 ug/l Styrene, and 150 ug/l Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASample was collected near the California Nevada Border.One water sample was collected. A water sample was collected in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219372012Sulfates Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California secondary MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   345672012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 26199SulfatesMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal605 of the 6 samples were greater than the Secondary MCLs objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) apply to ambient waters under the Colorado River Basin Region's narrative "Chemical Constituents" objective. The SMCL for Sulfates (SO4) is 500 mg/L.1.Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR title 22 section 64449.  Samples collected at stations 713CRNVBD (Colorado River at Nevada State Line).Samples collected between 10/24/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219372012Sulfates Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California secondary MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76772010State Reviewed Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219632012Tetrachloroethylene/PCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seven samples were collected, LOE No. 27151 had a total sample size of six due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong obejective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27151 and LOE No. 46759. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76472010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Seven samples were taken at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The six acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219632012Tetrachloroethylene/PCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seven samples were collected, LOE No. 27151 had a total sample size of six due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong obejective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27151 and LOE No. 46759. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219632012Tetrachloroethylene/PCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seven samples were collected, LOE No. 27151 had a total sample size of six due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong obejective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27151 and LOE No. 46759. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   271512010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Seven samples were taken at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The six acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219632012Tetrachloroethylene/PCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seven samples were collected, LOE No. 27151 had a total sample size of six due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong obejective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27151 and LOE No. 46759. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353732012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168142Tetrachloroethylene/PCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Tetrachloroethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Tetrachloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 8.85 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219632012Tetrachloroethylene/PCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seven samples were collected, LOE No. 27151 had a total sample size of six due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong obejective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27151 and LOE No. 46759. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353772012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168146Tetrachloroethylene/PCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Tetrachloroethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Tetrachloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.8 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219632012Tetrachloroethylene/PCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seven samples were collected, LOE No. 27151 had a total sample size of six due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong obejective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27151 and LOE No. 46759. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467592012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70The seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria .1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220172012Thiobencarb/Bolero Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCLs and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353862012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168155Thiobencarb/BoleroMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Thiobencarb.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The California Secondary MCL for thiobencarb is 0.001 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations).1.Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR title 22 section 64449.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220172012Thiobencarb/Bolero Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCLs and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353822012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168151Thiobencarb/BoleroWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Thiobencarb.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Thiobencarb is 1.4 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220172012Thiobencarb/Bolero Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCLs and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353812012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168150Thiobencarb/BoleroCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Thiobencarb.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Thiobencarb is 1.4 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220172012Thiobencarb/Bolero Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCLs and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76772010State Reviewed Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220172012Thiobencarb/Bolero Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCLs and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219752012Toluene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3.None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   271502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219752012Toluene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3.None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219752012Toluene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3.None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria .1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110,000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21,000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17,000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2.600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene,2,600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 Endrin Aldehyde, 29,000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14,000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4,600 ug/l Nickel, 11,000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219752012Toluene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3.None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353962012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168165TolueneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Toluene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for Toluene is 150 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219752012Toluene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3.None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219752012Toluene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3.None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353922012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168161TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Toluene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Toluene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 200,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305492012Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459322012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671339Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Cold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305492012Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459312012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671338Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305492012Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459332012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671340Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino290682012Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel is used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294572010State Reviewed Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as DieselWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved4 Four water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the river (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel, used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics (dro), for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. A sample was not collected in 11/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305502012Total Trihalomethane (TTHM) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   330402012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 24079Total Trihalomethane (TTHM)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20None of the 2 samples exceeded the guidelines.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.(Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin, 2006). California primary Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) apply to ambient waters under the "Chemical Constituents" objective. The primary MCL for Total Trihalomethanes is 0.080 mg/L (80 ug/L).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 2.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  The samples were collected at station 713CRNVBD (Colorado River at Nevada State Line).The samples were collected on 10/24/2005, and 5/2/2006. SWAMP (2002) procedure.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino321342012Toxaphene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evalaution guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459852012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671368ToxapheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Toxaphene concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino321342012Toxaphene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evalaution guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459842012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671367ToxapheneCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Toxaphene concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino321342012Toxaphene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evalaution guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459832012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671366ToxapheneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for toxaphene in fish tissue is 4.3 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected on a single day 12/9/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220772012Trichloroethylene/TCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seven samples were collected, LOE No. 27151 had a total sample size of six due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong obejective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27151 and LOE No. 46759. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76472010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Seven samples were taken at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The six acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220772012Trichloroethylene/TCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seven samples were collected, LOE No. 27151 had a total sample size of six due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong obejective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27151 and LOE No. 46759. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354012012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168170Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Trichloroethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Trichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 81 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220772012Trichloroethylene/TCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seven samples were collected, LOE No. 27151 had a total sample size of six due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong obejective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27151 and LOE No. 46759. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   271512010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Seven samples were taken at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The six acceptable water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220772012Trichloroethylene/TCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seven samples were collected, LOE No. 27151 had a total sample size of six due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong obejective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27151 and LOE No. 46759. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220772012Trichloroethylene/TCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seven samples were collected, LOE No. 27151 had a total sample size of six due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong obejective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27151 and LOE No. 46759. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354052012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168174Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Trichloroethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe trichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 2.7 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220772012Trichloroethylene/TCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27151 is replaced by the LOE No. 46759 because LOE No. 27151 and 7647 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seven samples were collected, LOE No. 27151 had a total sample size of six due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong obejective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27151 and LOE No. 46759. Thus, LOE No. 27151 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467592012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70The seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice a year from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the river. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria .1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino215742012Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. This line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. This sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 water sample exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76542010State Reviewed Styrene | Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10One water sample was collected in 5/2002 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. This sample did not exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 100 ug/l Styrene, and 150 ug/l Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASample was collected near the California Nevada Border.One water sample was collected. A water sample was collected in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino215752012Turbidity Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7604 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76042010State Reviewed TurbidityMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water quality measurements were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total measurements, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 5 NTU for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsMeasurements were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water quality measurements were collected. Water quality measurements were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Measurmements were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino223022012Vinyl chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of evidence No. 7657 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76572010State Reviewed Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | Vinyl chlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10One water sample was collected in 5/2002 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. This sample did not exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 4000 ug/l Methyl Bromide, 1600 ug/l Dichloromethane, and 525 ug/l Vinyl Chloride (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  A sample was collected near the California Nevada Border.One water sample was collected. A water sample was collected in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220702012Xylenes (total) (mixed) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the California MCLs and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   330432012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 24100Xylenes (total) (mixed)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Two samples were collected and no samples exceeded the objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. California Maximum Containment Levels are incorporated by reference through the basin plan (Colorado River Basin Plan 2006). The California MCL for Xylenes is 1.75 mg/L.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected at Colorado River at Nevada State Line-713CRNVBD.Samples were collected between 10/24/2005-5/2/2006. The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino220702012Xylenes (total) (mixed) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the California MCLs and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219462012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to sectino 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76352010State Reviewed Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR hardness dependent criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Lead,Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219462012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to sectino 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354082012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168179ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The California Secondary MCL for zinc is 5.0 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations).1.Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR title 22 section 64449.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219462012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to sectino 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329662012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21942Zinc, DissolvedCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved60None of the 6 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for zinc.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at station 713CRNVBD (Colorado River at Nevada State Line).Samples collected between 10/24/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219462012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to sectino 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76772010State Reviewed Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino291082012alpha-Chlordene | gama-Chlordene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess alpha-Chlordene, and gamma-Chlordene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294432010State Reviewed alpha-Chlordene | gama-ChlordeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the river (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219152012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219152012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria .1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110,000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21,000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17,000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2.600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene,2,600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 Endrin Aldehyde, 29,000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14,000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4,600 ug/l Nickel, 11,000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219152012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350262012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167792alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan I criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for alpha-endosulfan is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219152012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350222012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167788alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule criteria for alpha-endosulfan to protect human health for waters that include the designated use of MUN is 110 ug/L.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219152012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350212012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167786alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Cold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan I criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for alpha-endosulfan is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219152012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76322010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219152012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   271502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219152012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350172012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167782alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan I criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219142012alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219142012alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria .1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110,000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21,000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17,000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2.600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene,2,600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 Endrin Aldehyde, 29,000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14,000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4,600 ug/l Nickel, 11,000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219142012alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351512012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167872Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), alphaMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, alpha.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe BHC, alpha criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.0039 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219142012alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351352012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167868Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), alphaCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, alpha.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe BHC, alpha criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.013 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219142012alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   271502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218572012beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351722012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167881Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), betaMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, beta.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe BHC, beta criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218572012beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351562012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167877Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), betaCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, Beta.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe BHC, beta criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.046 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218572012beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   271502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218572012beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218572012beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria .1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110,000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21,000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17,000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2.600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene,2,600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 Endrin Aldehyde, 29,000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14,000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4,600 ug/l Nickel, 11,000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219162012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350392012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167806beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule criteria for beta-endosulfan to protect human health for waters that include the designated use of MUN is 110 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219162012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria .1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110,000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21,000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17,000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2.600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene,2,600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 Endrin Aldehyde, 29,000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14,000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4,600 ug/l Nickel, 11,000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219162012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350382012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167804beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Cold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan II criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for beta-endosulfan is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219162012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350342012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167800beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan II criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219162012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   271502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219162012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219162012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76322010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219162012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350432012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167810beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan II criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for beta-endosulfan is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219352012cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219352012cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of seven water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352362012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167736cis-1,2-DichloroethyleneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Dichloroethylene, cis 1,2-.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for Dichloroethylene, cis 1,2- is 6 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino292742012cis-Nonachlor | trans-Nonachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess cis-Nonachlor, and trans-Nonachlor consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294372010State Reviewed cis-Nonachlor | trans-NonachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the river (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219642012m-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219642012m-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   271502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219642012m-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria .1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110,000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21,000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17,000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2.600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene,2,600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 Endrin Aldehyde, 29,000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14,000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4,600 ug/l Nickel, 11,000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219642012m-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347552012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675341, 3 -dichlorobenzeneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 400 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219642012m-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347512012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675301, 3 -dichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 2,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino290542012o,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)) | o,p'-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | o,p'-DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | p,p'-DDMU Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, and p,p'-DDMU consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, and p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294462010State Reviewed o,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)) | o,p'-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | o,p'-DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | p,p'-DDMUWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 1 location in the river (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in marine waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219522012o-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219522012o-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219522012o-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347452012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167494o-DichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 17,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219522012o-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347492012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167498o-DichlorobenzeneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene is 600 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations ).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219522012o-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria .1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110,000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21,000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17,000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2.600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene,2,600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 Endrin Aldehyde, 29,000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14,000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4,600 ug/l Nickel, 11,000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino219522012o-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   271502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218652012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218652012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76732010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218652012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   271502010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218652012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347722012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675391, 4 -dichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 2,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line - 713CRNVBD]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218652012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved70Seven water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria .1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110,000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21,000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17,000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2.600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene,2,600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 Endrin Aldehyde, 29,000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14,000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4,600 ug/l Nickel, 11,000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200,000 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218652012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27150 is replaced by the LOE No. 46760 because LOE No. 27150 and 7650 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27150 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of nine water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347882012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675431, 4 -dichlorobenzeneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene is 5 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Nevada State Line]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218332012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   77052010State Reviewed pHWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone50Seven water quality measurements were taken at 1 location along this segment of the Colorado River. Two measurements could not be used in this assessment because of equipment failure or lack of proper documentation. The 5 acceptable measurements were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location. Of these total measurements, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Measurements were collected near the California Nevada Border.Seven water quality measurements were collected. Water quality measurements were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Nevada Border. Measurmements were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino218332012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   323632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21689pHCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone60None of the 6 samples were outside the pH range specified in the water quality objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGBasin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected at station 713CRNVBD - Colorado River at Nevada State Line.Data were collected during October 2005, May 2006 and 2007, October 2007, April and October 2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2188920121, 1-dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7674 is combined with LOE No. 34759 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2188920121, 1-dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7674 is combined with LOE No. 34759 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347592012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674681, 1-dichloroethaneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1-Dichloroethane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for 1, 1-Dichloroethane is 5 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino3062420121, 2-Dibromoethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347292012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674901, 2-DibromoethaneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Two samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for 1, 2-Dibromoethane is 0.05 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations ).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2907820121,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29489 received a use rating of insufficient because no evalution guideline for these pollutants were available in last assessment. However, evaluation guidelines for Chloroform and 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) are avaialble in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two water samples were collected for 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP), but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of two water samples exceeded the California MCL for chloroform and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350022012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167672ChloroformMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chloroform.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for total trihalomethanes is 80 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2907820121,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29489 received a use rating of insufficient because no evalution guideline for these pollutants were available in last assessment. However, evaluation guidelines for Chloroform and 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) are avaialble in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two water samples were collected for 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP), but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of two water samples exceeded the California MCL for chloroform and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   294892010State Reviewed 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved15 Fifteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chloroform, Methylene Bromide, Bromochloromethane, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane, 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropane, 2,2-Dichloropropane, or 1,1-Dichloropropene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2907820121,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29489 received a use rating of insufficient because no evalution guideline for these pollutants were available in last assessment. However, evaluation guidelines for Chloroform and 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) are avaialble in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two water samples were collected for 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP), but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of two water samples exceeded the California MCL for chloroform and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347272012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674881,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Two samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for 1, 2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane(DBCP) is 0.20 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2907820121,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29489 received a use rating of insufficient because no evalution guideline for these pollutants were available in last assessment. However, evaluation guidelines for Chloroform and 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) are avaialble in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two water samples were collected for 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP), but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of two water samples exceeded the California MCL for chloroform and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   349982012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167668ChloroformCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chloroform.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Chloroform criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 470 ug/L (The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria 2009).1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2191720121,1,1-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7674 is combined with LOE No. 34724 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2191720121,1,1-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7674 is combined with LOE No. 34724 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347242012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674571,1,1-TrichloroethaneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane is 200 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations ).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2187120121,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 11 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356702012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1681381,1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Two samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1, 2, 2-Tetrachloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.17 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2187120121,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 11 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356492012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1681341,1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1, 2, 2-Tetrachloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 11 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2187120121,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 11 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76692010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | Benzene | Carbon tetrachlorideMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.001 mg/l Benzene, 0.0005 mg/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.0005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, and 0.001 mg/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2225920121,1,2-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46761 is combined with LOE No. 34741 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76492010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2225920121,1,2-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46761 is combined with LOE No. 34741 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2225920121,1,2-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46761 is combined with LOE No. 34741 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   272122010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2225920121,1,2-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46761 is combined with LOE No. 34741 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467612012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2225920121,1,2-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46761 is combined with LOE No. 34741 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347572012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674661,1,2-TrichloroethaneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.60 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2225920121,1,2-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46761 is combined with LOE No. 34741 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347412012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674621,1,2-TrichloroethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 42 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2189020121,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347922012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674771,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene ChlorideMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Two samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1-Dichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.057ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2189020121,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347762012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674731,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene ChlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1-Dichloroethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1-Dichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 3.2 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2189020121,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2921520121,2,3-Trichlorobenzene | Chloroethane | Dichlorodifluoromethane | Methyl chloride (Chloromethane) | cis-1,3-Dichloropropene | trans-1,3-Dichloropropene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane, Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, and 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane, Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane, Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298102010State Reviewed 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene | Chloroethane | Dichlorodifluoromethane | Methyl chloride (Chloromethane) | cis-1,3-Dichloropropene | trans-1,3-DichloropropeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved6 Six water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane, Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002 from the six locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2206020121,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   348092012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674821,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2, 4-Trichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene is 70 ug/l for water and fish consumption.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2206020121,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   348132012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674861,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2, 4-Trichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene is 5 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2206020121,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2906520121,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | Bromobenzene | Cumene | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) | n-Butylbenzene | n-Propylbenzene | sec-Butylbenzene | tert-Butylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, and tert-Butylbenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene or the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene or the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295442010State Reviewed delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal9 Nine sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Nine sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002, November of 2003, and May of 2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. The rest of the locations were sampled in May of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2906520121,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | Bromobenzene | Cumene | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) | n-Butylbenzene | n-Propylbenzene | sec-Butylbenzene | tert-Butylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, and tert-Butylbenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene or the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene or the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294862010State Reviewed 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | Bromobenzene | Cumene | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) | n-Butylbenzene | n-Propylbenzene | sec-Butylbenzene | tert-ButylbenzeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved15 Fifteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2172220121,2-Dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46761 is combined with LOE No. 34767 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467612012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2172220121,2-Dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46761 is combined with LOE No. 34767 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347832012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675081,2-DichloroethaneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichloroethane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-Dichloroethane criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.38 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2172220121,2-Dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46761 is combined with LOE No. 34767 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347672012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675041,2-DichloroethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichloroethane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-Dichloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 99 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2172220121,2-Dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46761 is combined with LOE No. 34767 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   272122010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2172220121,2-Dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46761 is combined with LOE No. 34767 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76492010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2172220121,2-Dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46761 is combined with LOE No. 34767 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76692010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | Benzene | Carbon tetrachlorideMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.001 mg/l Benzene, 0.0005 mg/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.0005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, and 0.001 mg/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2156520121,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2156520121,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347352012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675261,2-Dichloroethylene,-transMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-trans-dichlorethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for trans-1, 2-Dichloroethene is 10 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2156520121,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   348192012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675221,2-Dichloroethylene,-transCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-trans-dichlorethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-trans-dichlorethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 140,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2173320121,2-Dichloropropane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46761 is combined with LOE No. 34799 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76492010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2173320121,2-Dichloropropane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46761 is combined with LOE No. 34799 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2173320121,2-Dichloropropane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46761 is combined with LOE No. 34799 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347992012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675131,2-DichloropropaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichloropropane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-Dichloropropane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 39 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2173320121,2-Dichloropropane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46761 is combined with LOE No. 34799 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   348142012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675171,2-DichloropropaneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichloropropane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-Dichloropropane criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.52 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2173320121,2-Dichloropropane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46761 is combined with LOE No. 34799 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467612012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2173320121,2-Dichloropropane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46761 is combined with LOE No. 34799 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   272122010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2908020121-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, and 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fraxctions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294922010State Reviewed 1-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | NaphthaleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved15 Fifteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2908020121-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, and 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fraxctions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295472010State Reviewed 1-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | AcenaphthyleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal15 Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2921120121-Methylphenanthrene | Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Phenanthrene, and 1-Methylphenanthrene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294912010State Reviewed 1-Methylphenanthrene | PhenanthreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved15 Fifteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2921120121-Methylphenanthrene | Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Phenanthrene, and 1-Methylphenanthrene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295462010State Reviewed 1-MethylphenanthreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal15 Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2906620122-Chlorotoluene | 4-Chlorotoluene | p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, and p-Cymene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294872010State Reviewed 2-Chlorotoluene | 4-Chlorotoluene | p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved15 Fifteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino2921620122-Hexanone | Acetone | Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) | Methyl isobutyl ketone (Methyl-2-Pentanone) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, and 2-Hexanone consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, or 2-Hexanone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, or 2-Hexanone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295072010State Reviewed 2-Hexanone | Acetone | Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) | Methyl isobutyl ketone (Methyl-2-Pentanone)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved6 Six water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, or 2-Hexanone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002 from the six locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215852012Acenaphthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   272112010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215852012Acenaphthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76522010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino301072012Acenaphthene | Aldrin | Chlorpyrifos | Diazinon | Toxaphene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Acenaphthene, Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, and Toxaphene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295962010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Aldrin | Chlorpyrifos | Diazinon | ToxapheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal15 Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218132012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 34825 is combined with LOE No. 7634 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   348212012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167555AldrinMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Aldrin criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00013 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218132012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 34825 is combined with LOE No. 7634 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459932012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671369AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218132012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 34825 is combined with LOE No. 7634 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   348252012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167559AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Aldrin criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 3 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218132012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 34825 is combined with LOE No. 7634 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   348052012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167549AldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Aldrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218132012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 34825 is combined with LOE No. 7634 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76342010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location inn April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218872012Aluminum Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California secondary MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76792010State Reviewed Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218872012Aluminum Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California secondary MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351782012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167564AluminumMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Aluminum.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The California Secondary MCL for aluminum is 0.2 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations).1.Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR title 22 section 64449.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218872012Aluminum Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California secondary MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino290222012Aluminum | Manganese | Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Aluminum, Manganese, and Silver consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295942010State Reviewed Aluminum | Manganese | SilverWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal15 Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino289122012Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn | Terbutryn Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29501 received a use rating of insufficient in laste assessemtn cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for prometryn is available, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometryn and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355402012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168105PrometrynWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Prometryn.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometryn is 1 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino289122012Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn | Terbutryn Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29501 received a use rating of insufficient in laste assessemtn cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for prometryn is available, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometryn and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   295012010State Reviewed Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn | TerbutrynWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved14 Fourteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, or Terbutryn for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. No samples were collected in 2003 from this location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216432012Anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   272112010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216432012Anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   467632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216432012Anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76522010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino300152012Anthracene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29575 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were avaialble for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Anthracene in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of four sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for anthracene and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328012012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21801AnthraceneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal40Zero of the 4 samples collected for Anthracene (sum of c0-c4) exceed the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for anthracene in freshwater sediments is 845 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following stations: Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates (715CRIDG1).The samples were collected on 10/25/2005-4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino300152012Anthracene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29575 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were avaialble for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Anthracene in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of four sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline for anthracene and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   295792010State Reviewed Anthracene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Dibenz[a,h]anthraceneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal15 Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218142012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE No. 35196 and 7674 were assessed for the same beneficial uses and same matrix, even the same evaluation guideline, the actual value of the evaluation guideline was changed from 0.05 mg/l to 0.01 mg/l for Arsenic. Thus, those two LOEs werenÂ’t combined, and LOE No. 35196 received a use rating of insufficient information because the minimum sample size of 16 has been reached for the database. LOE Nos. 35223 and 7634 werenÂ’t combined because two different evaluation guideline values: One was assessed with CTR criterion maximum concentration, while another was assessed with CTR criterion continuous concentration. Thus, LOE No. 35223 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objective is met. LOEs 35199 and 7696 were combined to determine a use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One composite fish tissue sample was collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California MCL, and none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459942012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671370ArsenicCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for arsenic in fish tissue is 0.0034 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. It is assumed that 10% of the total arsenic is present as inorganic arsenic. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218142012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE No. 35196 and 7674 were assessed for the same beneficial uses and same matrix, even the same evaluation guideline, the actual value of the evaluation guideline was changed from 0.05 mg/l to 0.01 mg/l for Arsenic. Thus, those two LOEs werenÂ’t combined, and LOE No. 35196 received a use rating of insufficient information because the minimum sample size of 16 has been reached for the database. LOE Nos. 35223 and 7634 werenÂ’t combined because two different evaluation guideline values: One was assessed with CTR criterion maximum concentration, while another was assessed with CTR criterion continuous concentration. Thus, LOE No. 35223 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objective is met. LOEs 35199 and 7696 were combined to determine a use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One composite fish tissue sample was collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California MCL, and none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352232012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167579ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe dissolved arsenic criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for dissolved arsenic is 0.150 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218142012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE No. 35196 and 7674 were assessed for the same beneficial uses and same matrix, even the same evaluation guideline, the actual value of the evaluation guideline was changed from 0.05 mg/l to 0.01 mg/l for Arsenic. Thus, those two LOEs werenÂ’t combined, and LOE No. 35196 received a use rating of insufficient information because the minimum sample size of 16 has been reached for the database. LOE Nos. 35223 and 7634 werenÂ’t combined because two different evaluation guideline values: One was assessed with CTR criterion maximum concentration, while another was assessed with CTR criterion continuous concentration. Thus, LOE No. 35223 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objective is met. LOEs 35199 and 7696 were combined to determine a use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One composite fish tissue sample was collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California MCL, and none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351992012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167572ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for arsenic is 33 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218142012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE No. 35196 and 7674 were assessed for the same beneficial uses and same matrix, even the same evaluation guideline, the actual value of the evaluation guideline was changed from 0.05 mg/l to 0.01 mg/l for Arsenic. Thus, those two LOEs werenÂ’t combined, and LOE No. 35196 received a use rating of insufficient information because the minimum sample size of 16 has been reached for the database. LOE Nos. 35223 and 7634 werenÂ’t combined because two different evaluation guideline values: One was assessed with CTR criterion maximum concentration, while another was assessed with CTR criterion continuous concentration. Thus, LOE No. 35223 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objective is met. LOEs 35199 and 7696 were combined to determine a use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One composite fish tissue sample was collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California MCL, and none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76962010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218142012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE No. 35196 and 7674 were assessed for the same beneficial uses and same matrix, even the same evaluation guideline, the actual value of the evaluation guideline was changed from 0.05 mg/l to 0.01 mg/l for Arsenic. Thus, those two LOEs werenÂ’t combined, and LOE No. 35196 received a use rating of insufficient information because the minimum sample size of 16 has been reached for the database. LOE Nos. 35223 and 7634 werenÂ’t combined because two different evaluation guideline values: One was assessed with CTR criterion maximum concentration, while another was assessed with CTR criterion continuous concentration. Thus, LOE No. 35223 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objective is met. LOEs 35199 and 7696 were combined to determine a use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One composite fish tissue sample was collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California MCL, and none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76852010State Reviewed Arsenic | CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effect Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effect Criteria for the protection of aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 0.25 mg/l Arsenic, and 15 mg/l Copper (USFWS, 1998).1.Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218142012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE No. 35196 and 7674 were assessed for the same beneficial uses and same matrix, even the same evaluation guideline, the actual value of the evaluation guideline was changed from 0.05 mg/l to 0.01 mg/l for Arsenic. Thus, those two LOEs werenÂ’t combined, and LOE No. 35196 received a use rating of insufficient information because the minimum sample size of 16 has been reached for the database. LOE Nos. 35223 and 7634 werenÂ’t combined because two different evaluation guideline values: One was assessed with CTR criterion maximum concentration, while another was assessed with CTR criterion continuous concentration. Thus, LOE No. 35223 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objective is met. LOEs 35199 and 7696 were combined to determine a use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One composite fish tissue sample was collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California MCL, and none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218142012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE No. 35196 and 7674 were assessed for the same beneficial uses and same matrix, even the same evaluation guideline, the actual value of the evaluation guideline was changed from 0.05 mg/l to 0.01 mg/l for Arsenic. Thus, those two LOEs werenÂ’t combined, and LOE No. 35196 received a use rating of insufficient information because the minimum sample size of 16 has been reached for the database. LOE Nos. 35223 and 7634 werenÂ’t combined because two different evaluation guideline values: One was assessed with CTR criterion maximum concentration, while another was assessed with CTR criterion continuous concentration. Thus, LOE No. 35223 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objective is met. LOEs 35199 and 7696 were combined to determine a use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One composite fish tissue sample was collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California MCL, and none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76342010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location inn April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218142012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE No. 35196 and 7674 were assessed for the same beneficial uses and same matrix, even the same evaluation guideline, the actual value of the evaluation guideline was changed from 0.05 mg/l to 0.01 mg/l for Arsenic. Thus, those two LOEs werenÂ’t combined, and LOE No. 35196 received a use rating of insufficient information because the minimum sample size of 16 has been reached for the database. LOE Nos. 35223 and 7634 werenÂ’t combined because two different evaluation guideline values: One was assessed with CTR criterion maximum concentration, while another was assessed with CTR criterion continuous concentration. Thus, LOE No. 35223 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objective is met. LOEs 35199 and 7696 were combined to determine a use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One composite fish tissue sample was collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California MCL, and none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351962012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167569ArsenicMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for arsenic is 0.01 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218682012Atrazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 22 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352452012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167584AtrazineMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Atrazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for Atrazine is 1 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218682012Atrazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 22 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352662012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167589AtrazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Atrazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Atrazine is 43 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218682012Atrazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 22 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76722010State Reviewed Atrazine | SimazineMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved160Sixteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.001 mg/l Atrazine, and 0.004 mg/l Simazine (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Sixteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. No samples were collected from the Imperial Dame grate location in 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino300142012Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | Secbumeton Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29502 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline was available for prometon in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356892012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168097Prometon (Prometone)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Prometon.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon is 98 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino300142012Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | Secbumeton Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29502 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline was available for prometon in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   295022010State Reviewed Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | SecbumetonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved14 Fourteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Atroton, Prometon, or Secbumeton for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. No samples were collected in 2003 from this location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino292052012Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29495 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were avaiable for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) is available, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water samples were collected for Azinphos Methyl (Guthion), but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353082012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167598Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Azinphos Methyl (Guthion) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is a maximum of 0.01 ug/l.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino292052012Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29495 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were avaiable for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) is available, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water samples were collected for Azinphos Methyl (Guthion), but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   294952010State Reviewed Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved15 Fifteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Azinphos, methyl, or Azinphos, ethyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216952012Benzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. LOE No. 46761 is combined with LOE No. 35356 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Also carbon tetrachloride had different total sample size from all other pollutants, and was separated from LOE No. 46761 and used in LOE No. 46762. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 46761 and 35356 are combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76492010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216952012Benzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. LOE No. 46761 is combined with LOE No. 35356 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Also carbon tetrachloride had different total sample size from all other pollutants, and was separated from LOE No. 46761 and used in LOE No. 46762. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 46761 and 35356 are combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   272122010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216952012Benzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. LOE No. 46761 is combined with LOE No. 35356 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Also carbon tetrachloride had different total sample size from all other pollutants, and was separated from LOE No. 46761 and used in LOE No. 46762. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 46761 and 35356 are combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   349952012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167617BenzeneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Benzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for Benzene is 1 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216952012Benzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. LOE No. 46761 is combined with LOE No. 35356 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Also carbon tetrachloride had different total sample size from all other pollutants, and was separated from LOE No. 46761 and used in LOE No. 46762. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 46761 and 35356 are combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353562012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167613BenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Benzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Benzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 71 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216952012Benzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. LOE No. 46761 is combined with LOE No. 35356 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Also carbon tetrachloride had different total sample size from all other pollutants, and was separated from LOE No. 46761 and used in LOE No. 46762. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 46761 and 35356 are combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467612012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216442012Benzo(a)anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7696 is combined with LOE No. 35331 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353312012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167605Benzo(a)anthraceneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Benz(a)anthracene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Benzo(a)anthracene is 1050 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216442012Benzo(a)anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7696 is combined with LOE No. 35331 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76962010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216442012Benzo(a)anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7696 is combined with LOE No. 35331 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76622010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene, and 11 ug/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino222992012Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 17 water smaples exceeded the California MCLs. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76232010State Reviewed Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) of 1450 ug/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino222992012Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 17 water smaples exceeded the California MCLs. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351812012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167621Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Benzo(a)pyrene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Benzo(a)Pyrene is 1450 ug/Kg dry weight (Macdonald et al. 2000)1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino222992012Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 17 water smaples exceeded the California MCLs. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino289112012Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | Terbufos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, and Terbufos consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295762010State Reviewed Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | BiphenylWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal15 Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino289112012Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | Terbufos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, and Terbufos consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295002010State Reviewed Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | TerbufosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved15 Fifteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217792012Benzo[b]fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7662 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle.Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 11 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76622010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene, and 11 ug/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino292372012Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, and Benzo(k)Fluoranthene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295802010State Reviewed Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluorantheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal15 Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218302012Benzo[k]fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7662 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle.Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 11 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76622010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene, and 11 ug/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306252012Bifenthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water sample results were collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0006 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of five sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463502012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000004BifenthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin. Six sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0006 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of bifenthrin does not exceed 0.0006 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.004 ug/L. Mixtures of bifenthrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306252012Bifenthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water sample results were collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0006 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of five sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354182012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168189BifenthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.43 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.43 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 2.NPDES Permit for Visalia.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino290922012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 29809 and 29574 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available. However guidelines for Dacthal and Dimethoate are available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded theUSEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal, and none of 6 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dimethoate. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350102012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167775DimethoateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Dimethoate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dimethoate is 43 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino290922012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 29809 and 29574 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available. However guidelines for Dacthal and Dimethoate are available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded theUSEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal, and none of 6 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dimethoate. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   295742010State Reviewed Dacthal | Mirex | OxadiazonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal15 Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Dacthal, Mirex, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino290922012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 29809 and 29574 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available. However guidelines for Dacthal and Dimethoate are available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded theUSEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal, and none of 6 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dimethoate. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   298092010State Reviewed Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | OxadiazonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved15 Fifteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino290922012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 29809 and 29574 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available. However guidelines for Dacthal and Dimethoate are available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded theUSEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal, and none of 6 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dimethoate. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350052012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167721DacthalWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Dacthal.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal 6600 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino290922012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 29809 and 29574 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available. However guidelines for Dacthal and Dimethoate are available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded theUSEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal, and none of 6 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dimethoate. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353432012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167717DacthalMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Dacthal.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for dacthal (DCPA) for the consumption of water and fish is 0.008 ug/L.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306272012Boron Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the California State Notification level criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   336482012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 24386BoronMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterNone60Zero of 6 samples exceeded the California State Notification Level criterion.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGWaters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents shall be present in amounts that adversely affect beneficial uses.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The California State Notification Level criterion for boron is 1 mg/L.1.Drinking Water Notification Levels and Response LevelsData was collected at the following station 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates).Samples were collected on 10/25/2005, 5/3/2006, 5/8/2007, 10/23/2007, 4/22/2008 and 10/29/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino214962012Bromoform Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. LOE No. 35206 is combined with LOE No. 46761 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   272122010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino214962012Bromoform Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. LOE No. 35206 is combined with LOE No. 46761 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352062012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167631BromoformCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Bromoform.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Bromoform criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 360 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino214962012Bromoform Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. LOE No. 35206 is combined with LOE No. 46761 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76492010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino214962012Bromoform Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. LOE No. 35206 is combined with LOE No. 46761 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352272012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167635BromoformMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Bromoform.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Bromoform criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 4.3 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino214962012Bromoform Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. LOE No. 35206 is combined with LOE No. 46761 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467612012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217482012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 35229 and 7674 were combined. LOEs 35249 and 7696 were also combined. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California MCLs, none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217482012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 35229 and 7674 were combined. LOEs 35249 and 7696 were also combined. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California MCLs, none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76932010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | SilverMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the following limits: 10 ug/l Cadmium, 50 ug/l Lead, 4 ug/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 100 ug/l Methoxychlor, and 50 ug/l Silver (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217482012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 35229 and 7674 were combined. LOEs 35249 and 7696 were also combined. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California MCLs, none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76962010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217482012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 35229 and 7674 were combined. LOEs 35249 and 7696 were also combined. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California MCLs, none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328342012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21890CadmiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved60None of the 6 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for cadmium.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at station 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217482012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 35229 and 7674 were combined. LOEs 35249 and 7696 were also combined. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California MCLs, none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352292012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167639CadmiumMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Maximum Contaminant Level for cadmium in the Basin Plan is 0.005 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217482012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 35229 and 7674 were combined. LOEs 35249 and 7696 were also combined. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California MCLs, none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352492012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167642CadmiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for cadmium is 4.98 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217482012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 35229 and 7674 were combined. LOEs 35249 and 7696 were also combined. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California MCLs, none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459952012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671371CadmiumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for cadmium in fish tissue is 2.2 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217482012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 35229 and 7674 were combined. LOEs 35249 and 7696 were also combined. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California MCLs, none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76312010State Reviewed CadmiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved150Fifteen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependant Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino292512012Carbon (organic) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess organic Carbon consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of organic carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295982010State Reviewed Carbon (organic)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal15 Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218702012Carbon tetrachloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE Nos. 46762 and 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Also carbon tetrachloride had different total sample size from all other pollutants, and was separated from LOE No. 46761 and used in LOE No. 46762. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76692010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | Benzene | Carbon tetrachlorideMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.001 mg/l Benzene, 0.0005 mg/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.0005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, and 0.001 mg/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218702012Carbon tetrachloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE Nos. 46762 and 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Also carbon tetrachloride had different total sample size from all other pollutants, and was separated from LOE No. 46761 and used in LOE No. 46762. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76492010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218702012Carbon tetrachloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE Nos. 46762 and 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Also carbon tetrachloride had different total sample size from all other pollutants, and was separated from LOE No. 46761 and used in LOE No. 46762. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   272122010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218702012Carbon tetrachloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE Nos. 46762 and 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Also carbon tetrachloride had different total sample size from all other pollutants, and was separated from LOE No. 46761 and used in LOE No. 46762. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352732012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167650Carbon tetrachlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Carbon tetrachloride.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Carbon tetrachloride criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 4.4 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218702012Carbon tetrachloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE Nos. 46762 and 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Also carbon tetrachloride had different total sample size from all other pollutants, and was separated from LOE No. 46761 and used in LOE No. 46762. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467622012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Carbon tetrachlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218702012Carbon tetrachloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE Nos. 46762 and 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Also carbon tetrachloride had different total sample size from all other pollutants, and was separated from LOE No. 46761 and used in LOE No. 46762. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352932012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167654Carbon tetrachlorideMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Carbon tetrachloride.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for Carbon tetrachloride is 0.5 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino289522012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29493 and 29572 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for some pollutants are available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water samples were collected for each Malathion and Parathion, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353612012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168001MethidathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Methidathion.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion is 0.86 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino289522012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29493 and 29572 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for some pollutants are available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water samples were collected for each Malathion and Parathion, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   295722010State Reviewed Methyl Parathion | ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal15 Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino289522012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29493 and 29572 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for some pollutants are available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water samples were collected for each Malathion and Parathion, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356082012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167973MalathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The UC Davis Criteria for Malathion for the protection of aquatic organisms is a 4 day average of 0.028 ug/L.1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: l. Organophosphate insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:1-48.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino289522012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29493 and 29572 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for some pollutants are available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water samples were collected for each Malathion and Parathion, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   294932010State Reviewed Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | TokuthionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved15 Fifteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino289522012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29493 and 29572 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for some pollutants are available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water samples were collected for each Malathion and Parathion, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355572012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168063ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The criterion continuous concentration for Parathion, Ethyl is 0.013 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218232012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and none of four sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of 17 water samples exceeded the Califorina drinking water MCLs and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   332252012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23456ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60None of the 6 samples exceeded the criterion continuous concentration for chlordane (total). Total chlordane is assessed as the sum of cis-chlordane, trans-chlordane, cis-nonachlor, trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe chlordane criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0043 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at station 715CRIDG1 Colorado River at Imperial Dam GratesSamples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218232012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and none of four sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of 17 water samples exceeded the Califorina drinking water MCLs and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460032012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671373ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218232012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and none of four sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of 17 water samples exceeded the Califorina drinking water MCLs and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459962012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671372ChlordaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218232012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and none of four sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of 17 water samples exceeded the Califorina drinking water MCLs and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   331752012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 24247ChlordaneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00The reporting limit for all 6 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria and thus the data were not used in this assessment.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe total chlordane criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00057 ug/L. This value corresponds to total chlordane, eg., the sum of cis-chlordane, trans-chlordane, cis-nonachlor, trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane. (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at station 715CRIDG1 Colorado River at Imperial Dam GratesSamples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218232012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and none of four sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of 17 water samples exceeded the Califorina drinking water MCLs and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328492012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21818ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal40Zero of 4 samples collected for Chlordane (Sum of trans-Chlordane, cis-Chlordane, cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor, and Oxychlordane) exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Chlordane in freshwater sediments is 17.6 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218232012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and none of four sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of 17 water samples exceeded the Califorina drinking water MCLs and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218232012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and none of four sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of 17 water samples exceeded the Califorina drinking water MCLs and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76342010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location inn April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino290902012Chlorfenvinphos | Chlorpyrifos, methyl | Cuomaphos | Dicrotophos | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | Fenchlorphos | Leptophos | Merphos | Mevinphos | Tetrachlorvinphos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, and Chlorpyrifos Methyl consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294962010State Reviewed Chlorfenvinphos | Chlorpyrifos, methyl | Cuomaphos | Dicrotophos | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | Fenchlorphos | Leptophos | Merphos | Mevinphos | TetrachlorvinphosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved15 Fifteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos, Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217242012Chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California secondary MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   331052012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 24341ChlorideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60None of the 6 samples exceeded the criteria of 230 mg/L.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Chloride criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 230000 ug/L (230 mg/L)(USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006).1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology  Samples were collected at station 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates).Samples were collected on 10/25/2005, 5/3/2006, 5/8/2007, 10/23/2007, 4/22/2008, and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217242012Chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California secondary MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76792010State Reviewed Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218782012Chlorobenzene (mono) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46763 is combined with LOE No. 35314 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35334 is combined with LOE No. 7674 for the aforementioned reasons. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353342012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167663Chlorobenzene (mono)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for monochlorobenzene is 70 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218782012Chlorobenzene (mono) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46763 is combined with LOE No. 35314 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35334 is combined with LOE No. 7674 for the aforementioned reasons. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218782012Chlorobenzene (mono) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46763 is combined with LOE No. 35314 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35334 is combined with LOE No. 7674 for the aforementioned reasons. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   272112010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218782012Chlorobenzene (mono) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46763 is combined with LOE No. 35314 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35334 is combined with LOE No. 7674 for the aforementioned reasons. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218782012Chlorobenzene (mono) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46763 is combined with LOE No. 35314 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35334 is combined with LOE No. 7674 for the aforementioned reasons. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76522010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218782012Chlorobenzene (mono) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46763 is combined with LOE No. 35314 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35334 is combined with LOE No. 7674 for the aforementioned reasons. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353142012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167659Chlorobenzene (mono)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Chlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 21,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306302012Chlorodibromomethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352172012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167735ChlorodibromomethaneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Dibromochloromethane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Dibromochloromethane criteria is 0.401 ug/L for the protection of human health from consumption of water and organisms (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306322012Chlorpyrifos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of four water samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) , and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460042012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671374ChlorpyrifosCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for chlorpyrifos in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306322012Chlorpyrifos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of four water samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) , and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354222012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168193ChlorpyrifosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for chlorpyrifos is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.77 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg and Weston, 2007).1.Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306322012Chlorpyrifos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of four water samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) , and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351902012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167678ChlorpyrifosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples total were collected. None of the samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005).Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218422012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE No. 33924 and 7634 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, two different values were used in the assessment: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC), and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 33924 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. LOE No. 35230 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. LOEs 34303 and 7674 were combined to determine a use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California MCL, and none of 6 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352302012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167685ChromiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Chromium.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for chromium is 111 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218422012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE No. 33924 and 7634 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, two different values were used in the assessment: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC), and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 33924 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. LOE No. 35230 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. LOEs 34303 and 7674 were combined to determine a use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California MCL, and none of 6 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   339242012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25782ChromiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60None of the 6 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for chromium III or the criteria for chromium VI.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each chromium III sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. The criterion continuous concentration (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for chromium VI is 11 ug/L and is not hardness dependent.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates).Samples collected between 10/25/05 and 10/29/08. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218422012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE No. 33924 and 7634 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, two different values were used in the assessment: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC), and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 33924 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. LOE No. 35230 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. LOEs 34303 and 7674 were combined to determine a use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California MCL, and none of 6 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   343032012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 26442ChromiumMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60None of the 6 samples exceeded the MCL for total Chromium.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Department of Public Health's Maximum Contaminate Level (MCL) in drinking water for Total Chromium is 0.05mg/L or 50ug/L.1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Samples collected at stations 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates).Samples collected between 10/25/05 and 10/29/08. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218422012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE No. 33924 and 7634 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, two different values were used in the assessment: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC), and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 33924 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. LOE No. 35230 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. LOEs 34303 and 7674 were combined to determine a use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California MCL, and none of 6 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218422012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE No. 33924 and 7634 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, two different values were used in the assessment: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC), and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 33924 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. LOE No. 35230 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. LOEs 34303 and 7674 were combined to determine a use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California MCL, and none of 6 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76342010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location inn April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219192012Chrysene (C1-C4) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 11 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of four sediment samples exceeded the sediment qaulity guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328692012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21824Chrysene (C1-C4)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal40Zero of 4 samples collected for Chrysene (Sum of c0-c3) exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Chrysene in freshwater sediments is 1290 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219192012Chrysene (C1-C4) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 11 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of four sediment samples exceeded the sediment qaulity guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76622010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene, and 11 ug/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218242012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7679 is combined with LOE No. 35276 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35296 is combined with LOE No. 7696 for the aforementioned reasons. Although LOE No. 7618 and 32898 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, two different water quality objective values were used in the assessment: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC), and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32898 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, and none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352962012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167703CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Copper.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for copper is 149 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218242012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7679 is combined with LOE No. 35276 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35296 is combined with LOE No. 7696 for the aforementioned reasons. Although LOE No. 7618 and 32898 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, two different water quality objective values were used in the assessment: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC), and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32898 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, and none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352762012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167700CopperMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Copper.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The California Secondary MCL for copper is 1.0 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations).1.Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR title 22 section 64449.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218242012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7679 is combined with LOE No. 35276 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35296 is combined with LOE No. 7696 for the aforementioned reasons. Although LOE No. 7618 and 32898 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, two different water quality objective values were used in the assessment: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC), and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32898 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, and none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328982012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21915CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60None of the 6 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for copper.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at station 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218242012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7679 is combined with LOE No. 35276 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35296 is combined with LOE No. 7696 for the aforementioned reasons. Although LOE No. 7618 and 32898 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, two different water quality objective values were used in the assessment: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC), and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32898 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, and none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76852010State Reviewed Arsenic | CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effect Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effect Criteria for the protection of aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 0.25 mg/l Arsenic, and 15 mg/l Copper (USFWS, 1998).1.Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218242012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7679 is combined with LOE No. 35276 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35296 is combined with LOE No. 7696 for the aforementioned reasons. Although LOE No. 7618 and 32898 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, two different water quality objective values were used in the assessment: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC), and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32898 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, and none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76792010State Reviewed Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218242012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7679 is combined with LOE No. 35276 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35296 is combined with LOE No. 7696 for the aforementioned reasons. Although LOE No. 7618 and 32898 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, two different water quality objective values were used in the assessment: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC), and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32898 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, and none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76522010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218242012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7679 is combined with LOE No. 35276 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35296 is combined with LOE No. 7696 for the aforementioned reasons. Although LOE No. 7618 and 32898 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, two different water quality objective values were used in the assessment: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC), and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32898 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, and none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76182010State Reviewed CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218242012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7679 is combined with LOE No. 35276 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35296 is combined with LOE No. 7696 for the aforementioned reasons. Although LOE No. 7618 and 32898 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, two different water quality objective values were used in the assessment: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC), and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32898 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, and none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76962010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306352012Cyanazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353212012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167711CyanazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cyanazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Cyanazine is 4.8 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306342012Cyfluthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water sample results were collected for each of these pollutants, but the results are not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of five sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) for Cyfluthrin and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463732012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000012CyfluthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total. Six sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.00005 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of cyfluthrin does not exceed 0.00005 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.0003 ug/L. Mixtures of cyfluthrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306342012Cyfluthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water sample results were collected for each of these pollutants, but the results are not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of five sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) for Cyfluthrin and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354302012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168201CyfluthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cyfluthrin from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino321472012Cyhalothrin, Lambda Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water sample results were collected for each of these pollutants, but the results are not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of five sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354452012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168207Cyhalothrin, LambdaWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.44 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.44 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for lambda-cyhalothrin from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino321472012Cyhalothrin, Lambda Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water sample results were collected for each of these pollutants, but the results are not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of five sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463342012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000020Cyhalothrin, LambdaWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, total. Six sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0005 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of lambda-cyhalothrin does not exceed 0.0005 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.001 ug/L. Mixtures of lambda-cyhalothrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino321482012Cypermethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water sample results were collected for each of these pollutants, but the results are not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of five sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463642012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000028CypermethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total. Six sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0002 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of cypermethrin does not exceed 0.0002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.001 ug/L. Mixtures of cypermethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino321482012Cypermethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water sample results were collected for each of these pollutants, but the results are not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of five sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354612012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168213CypermethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.3 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.3 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cypermethrin from Maund et al. (2002).1.Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216022012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   345462012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 26192DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00The method detection limit for all 6 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 4,4' DDT criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00022 ug/L (USEPA Nationally Recommended Criteria, 2006).1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology  Samples collected at stations 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216022012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   345472012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 26193DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00The method detection limit for all 6 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 4,4'-DDD criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00031 ug/L (USEPA Nationally Recommended Criteria, 2006).1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology  Samples collected at stations 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216022012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   345482012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 26194DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00The method detection limit for all 6 of the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 4,4'-DDE criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00022 ug/L (USEPA Nationally Recommended Criteria, 2006).1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology  Samples collected at stations 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216022012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76432010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) for pp'-DDT of 1.1 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216022012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328902012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21830DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal40Zero of 4 samples collected for Sum DDD exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDD (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 28.0 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216022012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329322012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21843DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal40Zero of 4 samples collected for Sum DDE exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDE (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 31.3 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216022012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329532012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21849DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal40Zero of 4 samples collected for Sum DDT exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Sum DDT (o,p' + p,p') in freshwater sediments is 62.9 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216022012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329592012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21855DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal40Zero of 4 samples collected for Total DDTs exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Total DDTs (DDD + DDE + DDT) in freshwater sediments is 572 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216022012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   345292012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 26191DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Cold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00The detection limit for DDT(o,p) is 0.001 ug/l, and the reporting limit for that is 0.002 ug/l. Since the WQS is smaller than the reporting limit, none of samples can be counted. In addition the detection limit for DDT(p,p') is 0.002 ug/l and the reporting limit is 0.005 ug/l, none of the samples can be counted. The water body was assessed for the sum of DDT(o,p') and DDT(p,p').1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 4,4' DDT criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.001 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306362012Deltamethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and none of six water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354882012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168219DeltamethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.79 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.79 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for deltamethrin from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306362012Deltamethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and none of six water samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463352012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000036DeltamethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC) of 0.02 ug/L, which is the geometric mean of the LOEC and NOEC, as determined in a 280 day toxicity study with the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database)1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217422012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Games (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459522012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671377DiazinonCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for diazinon in fish tissue is 1,500 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217422012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Games (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76902010State Reviewed DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDFG Hazardous Assessment Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Fish and Games (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.16 ug/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and GameSamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217422012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Games (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352122012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167730DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Finlayson, 2004).1.Water quality for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and GameData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217422012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Games (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354922012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168223DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for diazinon is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 11 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 11 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for diazinon from Ding et al. (2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216942012Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7662 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 11 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76622010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene, and 11 ug/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino292242012Dibenzothiophene | o-Xylene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Dibenzothiophene, and o-Xylene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene or the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene or the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295782010State Reviewed DibenzothiopheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal15 Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino292242012Dibenzothiophene | o-Xylene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Dibenzothiophene, and o-Xylene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene or the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene or the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295062010State Reviewed Dibenzothiophene | o-XyleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved9 Nine water samples were generally collected biannually from 10/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed from 10/2002 through 5/2004 from the upstream of the Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam Grates locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Samples were not collected in 5/2003 from the Imperial Dam grates, samples were not collected from upstream of the Imperial Dam in 11/2003 and 5/2004. The rest of the locations were only sampled in 10/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino292312012Dichlorobenzophenone | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene, and pp-DCBPconsistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene, or pp-DCBP for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene, or pp-DCBP for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295972010State Reviewed Dichlorobenzophenone | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal15 Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene, or Dichlorobenzophenone (pp-DCBP) for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218792012Dichlorobromomethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   272122010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218792012Dichlorobromomethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76492010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218792012Dichlorobromomethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467612012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218792012Dichlorobromomethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352012012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167626DichlorobromomethaneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Bromodichloromethane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Bromodichloromethane criteria is 0.56 ug/L for the protection of human health from consumption of water and organisms (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217432012Dichloromethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle.However, use ratings of LOE Nos. 27213 and 7646 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   272132010State Reviewed Dichloromethane | Methyl bromideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 48 ug/l Methyl Bromide, and 5 ug/l Dichloromethane (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217432012Dichloromethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle.However, use ratings of LOE Nos. 27213 and 7646 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76462010State Reviewed Dichloromethane | Methyl bromideMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 48 ug/l Methyl Bromide, and 5 ug/l Dichloromethane (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306442012Dichlorvos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352582012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167742DichlorvosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Dichlorvos.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Dichlorvos is 7.2 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217252012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7696 is combined with LOE No. 35326 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, none of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue evalaution guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459532012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671378DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217252012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7696 is combined with LOE No. 35326 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, none of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue evalaution guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353262012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167764DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for dieldrin is 61.8 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217252012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7696 is combined with LOE No. 35326 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, none of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue evalaution guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353252012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167763DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Dieldrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217252012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7696 is combined with LOE No. 35326 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, none of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue evalaution guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352822012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167750DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Dieldrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217252012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7696 is combined with LOE No. 35326 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, none of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue evalaution guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76962010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217252012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7696 is combined with LOE No. 35326 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, none of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue evalaution guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76342010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location inn April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217252012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7696 is combined with LOE No. 35326 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, none of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue evalaution guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459542012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671379DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217252012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7696 is combined with LOE No. 35326 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration, none of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue evalaution guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353032012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167757DieldrinMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Dieldrin criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306462012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   330902012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 24189EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60None of the 6 samples exceeded the criteria.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe endosulfan criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L. This value corresponds to the sum of alpha-endosulfan and beta-endosulfan (USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006).1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology  Samples were collected at station 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates).Samples were collected on 10/25/2005, 5/3/2006, 5/8/2007, 10/23/2007, 4/22/2008, and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306462012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459552012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671380EndosulfanCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in fish tissue is 13,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306462012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671381EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Endosulfan concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216422012Endosulfan sulfate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35052 and 46763 were combined. LOEs 35056 and 7652 were also combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms only from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   272112010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216422012Endosulfan sulfate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35052 and 46763 were combined. LOEs 35056 and 7652 were also combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms only from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76522010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216422012Endosulfan sulfate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35052 and 46763 were combined. LOEs 35056 and 7652 were also combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms only from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350562012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167823Endosulfan sulfateMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan sulfate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan Sulfate criteria for endosulfan sulfate to protect human health for waters that include the designated use of MUN is 110 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216422012Endosulfan sulfate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35052 and 46763 were combined. LOEs 35056 and 7652 were also combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms only from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350522012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167819Endosulfan sulfateCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan sulfate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan Sulfate criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216422012Endosulfan sulfate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35052 and 46763 were combined. LOEs 35056 and 7652 were also combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms only from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino292172012Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, and Endosulfan Sulfate consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295812010State Reviewed Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal15 Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215662012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 45964, 45965 and 35092 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. All other LOEs are combined for a use rating determination with corresponding LOEs based on the same beneficial uses, same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350612012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167828EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215662012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 45964, 45965 and 35092 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. All other LOEs are combined for a use rating determination with corresponding LOEs based on the same beneficial uses, same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   272112010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215662012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 45964, 45965 and 35092 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. All other LOEs are combined for a use rating determination with corresponding LOEs based on the same beneficial uses, same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76962010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215662012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 45964, 45965 and 35092 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. All other LOEs are combined for a use rating determination with corresponding LOEs based on the same beneficial uses, same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215662012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 45964, 45965 and 35092 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. All other LOEs are combined for a use rating determination with corresponding LOEs based on the same beneficial uses, same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350732012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167842EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for sum of endrin is 207 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215662012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 45964, 45965 and 35092 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. All other LOEs are combined for a use rating determination with corresponding LOEs based on the same beneficial uses, same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459652012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671383EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215662012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 45964, 45965 and 35092 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. All other LOEs are combined for a use rating determination with corresponding LOEs based on the same beneficial uses, same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215662012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 45964, 45965 and 35092 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. All other LOEs are combined for a use rating determination with corresponding LOEs based on the same beneficial uses, same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76522010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215662012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 45964, 45965 and 35092 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. All other LOEs are combined for a use rating determination with corresponding LOEs based on the same beneficial uses, same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76342010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location inn April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215662012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 45964, 45965 and 35092 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. All other LOEs are combined for a use rating determination with corresponding LOEs based on the same beneficial uses, same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350722012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167841EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.036 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215662012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 45964, 45965 and 35092 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. All other LOEs are combined for a use rating determination with corresponding LOEs based on the same beneficial uses, same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350662012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167835EndrinMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endrin criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.76 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215662012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 45964, 45965 and 35092 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. All other LOEs are combined for a use rating determination with corresponding LOEs based on the same beneficial uses, same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459642012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671382EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219902012Endrin aldehyde Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35054 and 46763 were combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219902012Endrin aldehyde Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35054 and 46763 were combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350842012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167853Endrin aldehydeCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin Aldehyde.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endrin Aldehyde criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219902012Endrin aldehyde Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35054 and 46763 were combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76522010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219902012Endrin aldehyde Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35054 and 46763 were combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   272112010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219212012Enterococcus Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.21 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of 16 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective for water contact recration and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76092010State Reviewed EnterococcusWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal152Fifteen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, 2 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007). The exceedance were found in samples collected on 10/02/2002 at Taylor Lake, and 11/04/2003 at the Imperial Dam grates (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In the Colorado River the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 61 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 10/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003 The exceedances were found in samples collected from 10/02/2002 through 11/04/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219212012Enterococcus Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.21 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of 16 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective for water contact recration and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76122010State Reviewed EnterococcusNon-Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal152Fifteen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, 2 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedance were found in samples collected on 10/02/2002 at Taylor Lake, and 11/04/2003 at the Imperial Dam grates (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In the Colorado River the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 305 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 10/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003 The exceedances were found in samples collected from 10/02/2002 through 11/04/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219212012Enterococcus Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.21 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of 16 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective for water contact recration and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   332462012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23285EnterococcusWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNone10The one sample collected did not exceed the entercoccus objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008Not SpecifiedThe entercoccus concentration shall not exceed more than 61/100ml. Basin Plan for the Colorado River Basin.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  The sample was collected from the Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates station 715CRIDG1.The samples were collected in October 2005. SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218802012Escherichia coli (E. coli) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective for water contact recreation and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   77042010State Reviewed Escherichia coli (E. coli)Non-Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal150Fifteen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In the Colorado River the maximum allowable E. coli density is 1175 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 10/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218802012Escherichia coli (E. coli) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective for water contact recreation and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   77012010State Reviewed Escherichia coli (E. coli)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal150Fifteen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In the Colorado River the maximum allowable E. coli density is 235 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 10/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218802012Escherichia coli (E. coli) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective for water contact recreation and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   332452012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23283Escherichia coli (E. coli)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNone10The one sample collected did not exceed the E. coli objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008Not SpecifiedThe E. coli concentration shall not exceed more than 235/100ml. Basin Plan for the Colorado River Basin.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  The sample was collected from the Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates station 715CRIDG1.The sample was collected in October 2005. SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino321492012Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and none of six water samples exceeded the the median lethal concentration (LC50). These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463572012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000044Esfenvalerate/FenvalerateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.13 ug/L, as determined in a 96 hour toxicity test using the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database)1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino321492012Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and none of six water samples exceeded the the median lethal concentration (LC50). These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354352012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168231Esfenvalerate/FenvalerateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.5 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.5 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219992012Ethylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 7674is combined with LOE No. 35120 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35116 is combined with LOE No. 46763 for the aforementioned reasons. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   272112010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219992012Ethylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 7674is combined with LOE No. 35120 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35116 is combined with LOE No. 46763 for the aforementioned reasons. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351162012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167860EthylbenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Ethylbenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Ethylbenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 29,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219992012Ethylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 7674is combined with LOE No. 35120 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35116 is combined with LOE No. 46763 for the aforementioned reasons. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219992012Ethylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 7674is combined with LOE No. 35120 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35116 is combined with LOE No. 46763 for the aforementioned reasons. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76522010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219992012Ethylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 7674is combined with LOE No. 35120 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35116 is combined with LOE No. 46763 for the aforementioned reasons. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219992012Ethylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 7674is combined with LOE No. 35120 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35116 is combined with LOE No. 46763 for the aforementioned reasons. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351202012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167864EthylbenzeneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Ethylbenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for Ethylbenzene is 300 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306472012Fenpropathrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of three water samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50), and none of two sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168239FenpropathrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for fenpropathrin from Ding et al. ( 2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/23/2007-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306472012Fenpropathrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of three water samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50), and none of two sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464482012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000052FenpropathrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal30Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin, 2.2 ug/L, is the median lethal concentration (LC50) as determined in a 96 hour toxicity test using the bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database)1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/23/2007-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220442012Fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35511 and 7696 were combined to determine a use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   272112010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220442012Fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35511 and 7696 were combined to determine a use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76962010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220442012Fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35511 and 7696 were combined to determine a use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76522010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220442012Fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35511 and 7696 were combined to determine a use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355112012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168255FluorantheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Fluoranthene (sum of Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene/Pyrenes, C1-).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for fluoranthene is 2230 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220442012Fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35511 and 7696 were combined to determine a use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220452012Fluorene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 32984 and 7696 were combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76522010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220452012Fluorene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 32984 and 7696 were combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76962010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220452012Fluorene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 32984 and 7696 were combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   272112010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220452012Fluorene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 32984 and 7696 were combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329842012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21861FluoreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal40Zero of 4 samples collected for fluorene (Sum of c0-c3) exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for fluorene in freshwater sediments is 536 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220452012Fluorene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 32984 and 7696 were combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218752012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue evalution guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76342010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location inn April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218752012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue evalution guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218752012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue evalution guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350932012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167918HeptachlorMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00021 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218752012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue evalution guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351092012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167922HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218752012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue evalution guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167912HeptachlorCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00021 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218752012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue evalution guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459752012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671386HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217472012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459762012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671387Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in fish tissue is 0.93 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking WaterData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217472012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351492012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167940Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor Epoxide criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217472012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351452012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167936Heptachlor epoxideMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor Epoxide criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00010 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217472012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351282012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167930Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor Epoxide criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00011 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217472012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217472012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459772012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671388Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217472012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76342010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location inn April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino292302012Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Heptachlor, and Heptachlor Epoxide consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295822010State Reviewed Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal15 Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218002012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Six new water samples were collected in current assessment cycle, but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355242012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167952Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Hexachlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00075 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218002012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Six new water samples were collected in current assessment cycle, but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355202012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167948Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Hexachlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00077 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218002012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Six new water samples were collected in current assessment cycle, but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218002012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Six new water samples were collected in current assessment cycle, but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. None of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459862012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671389Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobenzene. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue is 2.8 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino292382012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Methoxychlor | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, and Methoxychlor consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295952010State Reviewed Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Methoxychlor | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal15 Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218312012Hexachlorobutadiene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46762 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Also carbon tetrachloride had different total sample size from all other pollutants, and was separated from LOE No. 46761 and used LOE No. 46762. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35546 and 7649 were combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76492010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218312012Hexachlorobutadiene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46762 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Also carbon tetrachloride had different total sample size from all other pollutants, and was separated from LOE No. 46761 and used LOE No. 46762. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35546 and 7649 were combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   272122010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218312012Hexachlorobutadiene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46762 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Also carbon tetrachloride had different total sample size from all other pollutants, and was separated from LOE No. 46761 and used LOE No. 46762. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35546 and 7649 were combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355462012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167957HexachlorobutadieneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobutadiene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Hexachlorobutadiene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 50 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218312012Hexachlorobutadiene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46762 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Also carbon tetrachloride had different total sample size from all other pollutants, and was separated from LOE No. 46761 and used LOE No. 46762. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35546 and 7649 were combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355662012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167961HexachlorobutadieneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobutadiene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Hexachlorobutadiene criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.44 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218312012Hexachlorobutadiene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46762 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Also carbon tetrachloride had different total sample size from all other pollutants, and was separated from LOE No. 46761 and used LOE No. 46762. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35546 and 7649 were combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467612012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino292252012Hydroxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Hydroxide consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fraction of Hydroxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fraction of Hydroxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295082010State Reviewed HydroxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved6 Six water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for Hydroxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002 from the six locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215672012Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7662 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle.Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 11 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76622010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene, and 11 ug/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217302012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of five sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline line. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76372010State Reviewed Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR hardness dependent criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Lead,Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217302012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of five sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline line. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355692012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167965LeadWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Lead.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for lead is 128 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217302012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of five sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline line. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329192012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21922LeadWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved60None of the 6 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for lead.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217302012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of five sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline line. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76932010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | SilverMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the following limits: 10 ug/l Cadmium, 50 ug/l Lead, 4 ug/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 100 ug/l Methoxychlor, and 50 ug/l Silver (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218012012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE Nos. 35105, 7693 and 7674 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, all three LOEs were assessed based on three different water quality objectives. Thus, none of them combined for a use rating determination, and LOE No. 35105 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size. LOE 35125 is combined with 7696 to determine the use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the drinking water MCL or the Basin Plan water quality objective. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218012012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE Nos. 35105, 7693 and 7674 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, all three LOEs were assessed based on three different water quality objectives. Thus, none of them combined for a use rating determination, and LOE No. 35105 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size. LOE 35125 is combined with 7696 to determine the use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the drinking water MCL or the Basin Plan water quality objective. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76932010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | SilverMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the following limits: 10 ug/l Cadmium, 50 ug/l Lead, 4 ug/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 100 ug/l Methoxychlor, and 50 ug/l Silver (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218012012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE Nos. 35105, 7693 and 7674 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, all three LOEs were assessed based on three different water quality objectives. Thus, none of them combined for a use rating determination, and LOE No. 35105 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size. LOE 35125 is combined with 7696 to determine the use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the drinking water MCL or the Basin Plan water quality objective. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76962010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218012012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE Nos. 35105, 7693 and 7674 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, all three LOEs were assessed based on three different water quality objectives. Thus, none of them combined for a use rating determination, and LOE No. 35105 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size. LOE 35125 is combined with 7696 to determine the use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the drinking water MCL or the Basin Plan water quality objective. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350882012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167887Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe HCH, Gamma (Lindane) criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of organisms is 0.063 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218012012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE Nos. 35105, 7693 and 7674 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, all three LOEs were assessed based on three different water quality objectives. Thus, none of them combined for a use rating determination, and LOE No. 35105 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size. LOE 35125 is combined with 7696 to determine the use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the drinking water MCL or the Basin Plan water quality objective. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351052012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167894Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe BHC, gamma(Lindane) criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.019 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218012012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE Nos. 35105, 7693 and 7674 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, all three LOEs were assessed based on three different water quality objectives. Thus, none of them combined for a use rating determination, and LOE No. 35105 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size. LOE 35125 is combined with 7696 to determine the use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the drinking water MCL or the Basin Plan water quality objective. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351242012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167900Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe gamma-BHC (Lindane) criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.95 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218012012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE Nos. 35105, 7693 and 7674 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, all three LOEs were assessed based on three different water quality objectives. Thus, none of them combined for a use rating determination, and LOE No. 35105 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size. LOE 35125 is combined with 7696 to determine the use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the drinking water MCL or the Basin Plan water quality objective. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351252012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167901Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Lindane (gamma-HCH) is 4.99 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218012012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE Nos. 35105, 7693 and 7674 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, all three LOEs were assessed based on three different water quality objectives. Thus, none of them combined for a use rating determination, and LOE No. 35105 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size. LOE 35125 is combined with 7696 to determine the use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the drinking water MCL or the Basin Plan water quality objective. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459662012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671384Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in fish tissue is 4.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218012012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE Nos. 35105, 7693 and 7674 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, all three LOEs were assessed based on three different water quality objectives. Thus, none of them combined for a use rating determination, and LOE No. 35105 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size. LOE 35125 is combined with 7696 to determine the use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded either the drinking water MCL or the Basin Plan water quality objective. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459742012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671385Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219092012Manganese Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76792010State Reviewed Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219092012Manganese Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356292012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167979ManganeseMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Manganese.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The California Secondary MCL for manganese is 0.05 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations).1.Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR title 22 section 64449.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218322012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35655 is combined with LOE No. 7653 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives.LOE Nos. 46763 and 35651, LOE Nos. 7696 and 7640, and LOE Nos. 7696 and 35675 are combined for a use rating determination for the aforementioned reasons. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, none of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 1 fish tissue sample exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76402010State Reviewed MercuryWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NRWQC criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.4 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2002).1.National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218322012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35655 is combined with LOE No. 7653 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives.LOE Nos. 46763 and 35651, LOE Nos. 7696 and 7640, and LOE Nos. 7696 and 35675 are combined for a use rating determination for the aforementioned reasons. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, none of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 1 fish tissue sample exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76962010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218322012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35655 is combined with LOE No. 7653 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives.LOE Nos. 46763 and 35651, LOE Nos. 7696 and 7640, and LOE Nos. 7696 and 35675 are combined for a use rating determination for the aforementioned reasons. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, none of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 1 fish tissue sample exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459872012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671390MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. Seven composites were generated from one species: largemouth bass. Composites comprised of 1 fish per composite. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish (150 - 500 mm; fillet wet weight) is 0.20 mg/kg.1.Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218322012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35655 is combined with LOE No. 7653 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives.LOE Nos. 46763 and 35651, LOE Nos. 7696 and 7640, and LOE Nos. 7696 and 35675 are combined for a use rating determination for the aforementioned reasons. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, none of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 1 fish tissue sample exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   272112010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218322012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35655 is combined with LOE No. 7653 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives.LOE Nos. 46763 and 35651, LOE Nos. 7696 and 7640, and LOE Nos. 7696 and 35675 are combined for a use rating determination for the aforementioned reasons. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, none of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 1 fish tissue sample exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218322012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35655 is combined with LOE No. 7653 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives.LOE Nos. 46763 and 35651, LOE Nos. 7696 and 7640, and LOE Nos. 7696 and 35675 are combined for a use rating determination for the aforementioned reasons. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, none of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 1 fish tissue sample exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356752012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167993MercuryWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for mercury is 1.06 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218322012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35655 is combined with LOE No. 7653 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives.LOE Nos. 46763 and 35651, LOE Nos. 7696 and 7640, and LOE Nos. 7696 and 35675 are combined for a use rating determination for the aforementioned reasons. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, none of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 1 fish tissue sample exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356552012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167990MercuryMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe mercury criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms for mercury is 0.050 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218322012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35655 is combined with LOE No. 7653 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives.LOE Nos. 46763 and 35651, LOE Nos. 7696 and 7640, and LOE Nos. 7696 and 35675 are combined for a use rating determination for the aforementioned reasons. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, none of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 1 fish tissue sample exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356512012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167984MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Mercury criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.051 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218322012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35655 is combined with LOE No. 7653 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives.LOE Nos. 46763 and 35651, LOE Nos. 7696 and 7640, and LOE Nos. 7696 and 35675 are combined for a use rating determination for the aforementioned reasons. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, none of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 1 fish tissue sample exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76522010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218322012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35655 is combined with LOE No. 7653 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives.LOE Nos. 46763 and 35651, LOE Nos. 7696 and 7640, and LOE Nos. 7696 and 35675 are combined for a use rating determination for the aforementioned reasons. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, none of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of 1 fish tissue sample exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217282012Methoxychlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7674 is combined with LOE No. 35531 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355312012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168008MethoxychlorMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Methoxychlor.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for Methoxychlor is 30 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217282012Methoxychlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7674 is combined with LOE No. 35531 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76932010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | SilverMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the following limits: 10 ug/l Cadmium, 50 ug/l Lead, 4 ug/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 100 ug/l Methoxychlor, and 50 ug/l Silver (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217282012Methoxychlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7674 is combined with LOE No. 35531 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217282012Methoxychlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7674 is combined with LOE No. 35531 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76282010State Reviewed MethoxychlorMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USEPA criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006USEPA Drinking Water Criteria of 40 ug/l for the protection of drinking water uses (USEPA, 2002).1.National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217282012Methoxychlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7674 is combined with LOE No. 35531 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355512012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168011MethoxychlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Methoxychlor.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The criterion continuous concentration for Methoxychlor is 0.3 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306492012Methyl Parathion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded theCalifornia Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria, and none of four sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354652012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168241Methyl ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for methyl parathion is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 6 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 6 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for methyl parathion from Ding et al. (2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306492012Methyl Parathion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded theCalifornia Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria, and none of four sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355962012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168071Methyl ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion is 0.08 ug/L.1.Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Methyl to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River SystemData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217292012Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7679 is combined with LOE No. 35657 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the secondary drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217292012Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7679 is combined with LOE No. 35657 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the secondary drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356572012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168036Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for MTBE.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The California Secondary MCL for MTBE is 0.005 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations).1.Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR title 22 section 64449.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217292012Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7679 is combined with LOE No. 35657 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the secondary drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76792010State Reviewed Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217932012Methyl bromide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 27213 and 7646 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   272132010State Reviewed Dichloromethane | Methyl bromideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 48 ug/l Methyl Bromide, and 5 ug/l Dichloromethane (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217932012Methyl bromide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 27213 and 7646 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76462010State Reviewed Dichloromethane | Methyl bromideMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 48 ug/l Methyl Bromide, and 5 ug/l Dichloromethane (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306502012Mirex Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water sample and one fish tissue sampels were collected but none of them were used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459882012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671391MirexCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Mirex. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in fish tissue is 0.28 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306502012Mirex Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six water sample and one fish tissue sampels were collected but none of them were used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355912012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168021MirexWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Six samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The criterion continuous concentration for Mirex is 0.001 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219912012Molinate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 35616 and 7674 were combined. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356162012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168030MolinateMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Molinate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for Molinate is 20 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219912012Molinate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 35616 and 7674 were combined. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219912012Molinate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 35616 and 7674 were combined. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356342012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168031MolinateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Molinate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Molinate is 0.6 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217942012Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 32564 and 7696 were combined to determine the final use rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of two water sample exceeded the California State Notification Level criterion for naphthalene. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76962010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217942012Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 32564 and 7696 were combined to determine the final use rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of two water sample exceeded the California State Notification Level criterion for naphthalene. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   316162012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) NaphthaleneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Zero of 2 samples exceeded the California State Notification Level criterion.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGWaters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents shall be present in amounts that adversely affect beneficial uses.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The California State Notification Level criterion for naphthalene is 0.017 mg/L.1.Drinking Water Notification Levels and Response LevelsData was collected at the following station 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates).Samples were collected on 10/25/2005 and 5/3/2006. The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217942012Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 32564 and 7696 were combined to determine the final use rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of two water sample exceeded the California State Notification Level criterion for naphthalene. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   325642012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21867NaphthaleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal40Zero of 4 samples collected for naphthalene (Sum of c0-c4) exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for naphthalene in freshwater sediments is 561 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino222962012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. Although LOE No. 32940 and 7637 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, these two LOEs were assessed based on two different water quality objectives values: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC) and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32940 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. The following LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating: 35662 and 46763; 35682 and 7674; 35362 and 7696. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria , and none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76372010State Reviewed Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR hardness dependent criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Lead,Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino222962012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. Although LOE No. 32940 and 7637 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, these two LOEs were assessed based on two different water quality objectives values: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC) and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32940 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. The following LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating: 35662 and 46763; 35682 and 7674; 35362 and 7696. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria , and none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356822012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168046NickelMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for nickel is 0.1 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino222962012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. Although LOE No. 32940 and 7637 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, these two LOEs were assessed based on two different water quality objectives values: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC) and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32940 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. The following LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating: 35662 and 46763; 35682 and 7674; 35362 and 7696. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria , and none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356622012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168041NickelCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Nickel criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 4,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino222962012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. Although LOE No. 32940 and 7637 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, these two LOEs were assessed based on two different water quality objectives values: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC) and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32940 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. The following LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating: 35662 and 46763; 35682 and 7674; 35362 and 7696. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria , and none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353622012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168049NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for nickel is 48.6 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino222962012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. Although LOE No. 32940 and 7637 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, these two LOEs were assessed based on two different water quality objectives values: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC) and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32940 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. The following LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating: 35662 and 46763; 35682 and 7674; 35362 and 7696. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria , and none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329402012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21930NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved60None of the 6 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for nickel.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at station 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates)Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino222962012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. Although LOE No. 32940 and 7637 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, these two LOEs were assessed based on two different water quality objectives values: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC) and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32940 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. The following LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating: 35662 and 46763; 35682 and 7674; 35362 and 7696. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria , and none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   272112010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino222962012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. Although LOE No. 32940 and 7637 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, these two LOEs were assessed based on two different water quality objectives values: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC) and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32940 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. The following LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating: 35662 and 46763; 35682 and 7674; 35362 and 7696. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria , and none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino222962012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. Although LOE No. 32940 and 7637 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, these two LOEs were assessed based on two different water quality objectives values: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC) and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32940 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. The following LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating: 35662 and 46763; 35682 and 7674; 35362 and 7696. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria , and none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76522010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino222962012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. Although LOE No. 32940 and 7637 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, these two LOEs were assessed based on two different water quality objectives values: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC) and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32940 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. The following LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating: 35662 and 46763; 35682 and 7674; 35362 and 7696. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria , and none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino222962012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. Although LOE No. 32940 and 7637 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, these two LOEs were assessed based on two different water quality objectives values: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC) and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32940 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. The following LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating: 35662 and 46763; 35682 and 7674; 35362 and 7696. None of other samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria , and none of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76962010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219922012Nitrate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL for Nitrate (as NO3), none of six water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL for Nitrate (as N), and noneof six water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL for Nitrate+Nitrite (sum as nitrogen). These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355332012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168056Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterNone60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) is 10 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219922012Nitrate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL for Nitrate (as NO3), none of six water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL for Nitrate (as N), and noneof six water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL for Nitrate+Nitrite (sum as nitrogen). These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353672012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168054NitrateMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterNone60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate as N.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for nitrate (as N) is 10 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219922012Nitrate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL for Nitrate (as NO3), none of six water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL for Nitrate (as N), and noneof six water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL for Nitrate+Nitrite (sum as nitrogen). These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220462012Nitrogen, Nitrite Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220462012Nitrogen, Nitrite Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355352012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168058NitriteMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterNone60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrite as N.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for nitrite (as N) is 1.0 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306512012Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five water samples exceeded the USEPA Temperature and pH-Dependent values of the CCC and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   345712012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 26204Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal50None of the 5 samples exceed the water USEPA Temperature and pH-Dependent values of the CCC (Chronic Criterion) for Fish Early Life Stages Present for ammonia. 3 of the 5 data samples are reported as Non-Detect (ND). These 3 ND values are less than or equal to the water quality standard, the value will be considered as meeting the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGWater Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin Region (RWQCB 2006): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There is no water quality objective for ammonia in the Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin. Instead, the USEPA criteria for ammonia was used as Temperature and pH-Dependent Values of the CCC (Chronic Criterion)for Fish Early Life Stages Present.1.1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia  Sample was collected at 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino289102012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29499 and 29575 received use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available. However, evaluation guidelines for Phorate and Phosmet are available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Phorate, and none of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet . These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   294992010State Reviewed Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | TrichloronateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved15 Fifteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino289102012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29499 and 29575 received use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available. However, evaluation guidelines for Phorate and Phosmet are available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Phorate, and none of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet . These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   295752010State Reviewed Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | TedionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal15 Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino289102012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29499 and 29575 received use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available. However, evaluation guidelines for Phorate and Phosmet are available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Phorate, and none of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet . These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356212012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168081PhorateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Phorate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Phorate is 2 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino289102012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29499 and 29575 received use rating of insufficient in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available. However, evaluation guidelines for Phorate and Phosmet are available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Phorate, and none of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet . These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356642012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168089PhosmetWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Phosmet.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet is 5.6 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306522012Oxygen, Dissolved Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   323422012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21684Oxygen, DissolvedWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved50Zero of the five samples exceeded the water quality objective for dissolved oxygen.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGFrom the Colorado River Water Quality Control Plan 'The dissolved Oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below the following minimum levels at any time: for waters designated as WARM-5.0 mg/L.'1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  The samples were collected at station 715CRIDG1 - Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates.The samples were collected during October 2005, May 2006, May 2007, October 2007, and April 2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306532012PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354562012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168277PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for fluoranthene is 2230 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220472012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       NNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7696 is combined with LOE No. 33420 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 wate samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, none of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459982012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671393PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total PCB concentration of 500 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220472012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       NNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7696 is combined with LOE No. 33420 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 wate samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, none of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   334202012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23831PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal40Zero of 4 samples collected for Total PCBs exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total PCB is 676 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates).The samples were collected on 10/25/2005, 5/3/2006, 10/23/2007 and 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220472012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       NNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7696 is combined with LOE No. 33420 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 wate samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, none of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220472012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       NNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7696 is combined with LOE No. 33420 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 wate samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, none of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459972012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671392PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for polychlorinated biphenyls in fish tissue is 2.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220472012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       NNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7696 is combined with LOE No. 33420 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 wate samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, none of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   334142012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23413PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20None of the 2 samples exceeded the criterion continuous concentration for total PCB. The water body was assessed for the 3 aroclors that were contained within the data set and they include aroclor 1248, aroclor 1254, and aroclor 1260.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe total PCB criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.014 ug/L. This value corresponds to the sum of aroclors 1242, 1254, 1221, 1232, 1248, 1260, and 1016 (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at station 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates).Samples collected between 4/22/2008 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220472012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       NNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7696 is combined with LOE No. 33420 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 wate samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, none of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329952012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23447PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00The method detection limit for all the non-detect samples was greater than the criteria: thus the data was not used in this assessment.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe total PCB criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.00017 ug/L. This value corresponds to total PCBs, eg., the sum of all congener or isomer or homolog or aroclor analyses (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at station 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates).Samples were collected on 10/25/2005, 5/3/2006, 5/8/2007, 10/23/2007, 4/22/2008, and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220472012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       NNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7696 is combined with LOE No. 33420 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 wate samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, none of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76962010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino254392012Perchlorate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7615 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment due to following reasons, and the same reason applied for the LOE No. 35601 in receiving a use rating of insufficient information. The reasons are as follows: Two water samples exceeded the water quality objective. When compared to the drinking water 6 ug/l threshold for human health, there were 2 exceedances in October 2002 out of 23 total water samples taken over all the sampling years. However, not enough samples were collected and reported to develop an accurate assessment of perchlorate in the Colorado River.A remedial effort has been underway since October 2002 to remove perchlorate from a source near Henderson, NV. Because of this, monitoring data collected before October 2002 are no longer representative of perchlorate in the River. A recent report on the progress of remedial efforts reported that the concentration of perchlorate in this segment of the Colorado River (monitoring location at the diversion to the California Aquaeduct) is decreasing. Monitoring data collected since October 2002 indicates generally declining concentrations of perchlorate (USEPA, 2006; SWAMP, 2007). In 2005 at the Colorado River diversion to the California Aqueduct, twelve monthly samples reported perchlorate concentrations below 4 ppb (USEPA, 2006). From the late 2005 to 2008, six more samples collected through the SWAMP, and none of them showed exceedance.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two out of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL used to interpret the water quality objective in October 2002 and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, not enough samples were collected and reported to develop an accurate assessment of perchlorate in the Colorado River. 4. Monitoring data collected since October 2002 by the SWAMP program and other indicates generally declining concentrations of perchlorate. In 2005 at the Colorado River diversion to the California Aqueduct, twelve monthly samples collected by others reported perchlorate concentrations below 4 ppb. Recent data also showed that impairment was no longer observed.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because there is insufficient information was collected and reported to accurately assess perchlorate in the Colorado River.   76152010State Reviewed PerchlorateMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterNone172Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, 2 exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007). The exceedences were found in samples collected on 10/01/2002 at Taylor Lake, and 10/02/02 at Parker Dam (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 0.006 mg/l for the protection of human health (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003 The exceedances were found in samples collected from 10/01/2002 through 10/02/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino254392012Perchlorate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7615 received a use rating of insufficient in last assessment due to following reasons, and the same reason applied for the LOE No. 35601 in receiving a use rating of insufficient information. The reasons are as follows: Two water samples exceeded the water quality objective. When compared to the drinking water 6 ug/l threshold for human health, there were 2 exceedances in October 2002 out of 23 total water samples taken over all the sampling years. However, not enough samples were collected and reported to develop an accurate assessment of perchlorate in the Colorado River.A remedial effort has been underway since October 2002 to remove perchlorate from a source near Henderson, NV. Because of this, monitoring data collected before October 2002 are no longer representative of perchlorate in the River. A recent report on the progress of remedial efforts reported that the concentration of perchlorate in this segment of the Colorado River (monitoring location at the diversion to the California Aquaeduct) is decreasing. Monitoring data collected since October 2002 indicates generally declining concentrations of perchlorate (USEPA, 2006; SWAMP, 2007). In 2005 at the Colorado River diversion to the California Aqueduct, twelve monthly samples reported perchlorate concentrations below 4 ppb (USEPA, 2006). From the late 2005 to 2008, six more samples collected through the SWAMP, and none of them showed exceedance.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two out of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL used to interpret the water quality objective in October 2002 and this exceeds the allowable frequency calculated from the equation in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, not enough samples were collected and reported to develop an accurate assessment of perchlorate in the Colorado River. 4. Monitoring data collected since October 2002 by the SWAMP program and other indicates generally declining concentrations of perchlorate. In 2005 at the Colorado River diversion to the California Aqueduct, twelve monthly samples collected by others reported perchlorate concentrations below 4 ppb. Recent data also showed that impairment was no longer observed.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because there is insufficient information was collected and reported to accurately assess perchlorate in the Colorado River.   356012012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168076PerchlorateMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterNone60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Perchlorate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for Perchlorate is 6 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306542012Permethrin, total Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Four water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. One of five sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354942012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168249Permethrin, totalWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal51Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 8.9 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for permethrin from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306542012Permethrin, total Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Four water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. One of five sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464562012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000060Permethrin, totalWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total. Four sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.002 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of permethrin does not exceed 0.002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.01 ug/L. Mixtures of permethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/23/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217952012Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328242012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21807PhenanthreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal40Zero of 4 samples collected for Phenanthrene (sum of c0-c4) exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Phenanthrene in freshwater sediments is 1170 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following stations: Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217952012Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 21 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76962010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino292362012Pheophytin a Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.7.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Pheophytin a consistent with Listing Policy section 3.7.1. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295092010State Reviewed Pheophytin aWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved6 Six water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002 from the six locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino292222012Propazine | Terbuthylazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Propazine, and Terbuthylazine consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. LOE No. 29503 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Propazine is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3.None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Propazine and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   295032010State Reviewed Propazine | TerbuthylazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved14 Fourteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Propazine, or Terbuthylazine for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. No samples were collected in 2003 from this location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino292222012Propazine | Terbuthylazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Propazine, and Terbuthylazine consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. LOE No. 29503 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Propazine is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3.None of six water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Propazine and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355812012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168113PropazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Propazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Propazine is 25 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217462012Pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76522010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217462012Pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   272112010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217462012Pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354402012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168262PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Pyrene (sum of Pyrene and Fluoranthene/Pyrenes, C1-).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for pyrene is 1520 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217462012Pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76962010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino289222012Salinity Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29510 received a use rating of infufficient in last assessment cycle because no evalution guideline was available for this pollutnat. However, a water quality objective for salinity is available in current assessement cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of Five water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   295102010State Reviewed SalinityWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved3 Three water samples were collected from 4/2003 through 4/2004 at 2 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for Salinity for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Three water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from 4/2003 through 4/2004 upstream of the Imperial Dam, and 11/2003, and 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam Grates. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino289222012Salinity Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29510 received a use rating of infufficient in last assessment cycle because no evalution guideline was available for this pollutnat. However, a water quality objective for salinity is available in current assessement cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of Five water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   345722012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 26205Salinity/TDS/ChloridesCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal500 of the 5 samples were greater than the site specific objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Colorado River Basin Plan has a site specific numeric objective for stating: "The flow-weighted average annual numeric criteria for salinity (total dissolved solids) were established at three locations on the lower Colorado River: Imperial Dam, AZ-CA ...................879 mg/L."1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples collected at stations 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220482012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 30277 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment because no evalution guideline was available for this pollutant. LOE No. 45999 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, and none of one fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220482012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 30277 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment because no evalution guideline was available for this pollutant. LOE No. 45999 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, and none of one fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459992012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671394SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenium in fish tissue is 7.4 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A background dietary consumption rate of 0.114 mg/day is applied for this micronutrient.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220482012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 30277 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment because no evalution guideline was available for this pollutant. LOE No. 45999 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 17 water samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, and none of one fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   302772010State Reviewed SeleniumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal15 Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Selenium for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219102012Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE No. 32961 and 7637 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, these two LOEs were not combined for a use rating determination because these two were assessed based on two different water quality objectives values: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC) and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32961 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. LOEs 35602 and 7679 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356022012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168119SilverMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Silver.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The California Secondary MCL for silver is 0.1 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations).1.Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR title 22 section 64449.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219102012Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE No. 32961 and 7637 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, these two LOEs were not combined for a use rating determination because these two were assessed based on two different water quality objectives values: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC) and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32961 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. LOEs 35602 and 7679 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76932010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | SilverMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the following limits: 10 ug/l Cadmium, 50 ug/l Lead, 4 ug/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 100 ug/l Methoxychlor, and 50 ug/l Silver (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219102012Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE No. 32961 and 7637 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, these two LOEs were not combined for a use rating determination because these two were assessed based on two different water quality objectives values: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC) and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32961 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. LOEs 35602 and 7679 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76792010State Reviewed Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219102012Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE No. 32961 and 7637 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, these two LOEs were not combined for a use rating determination because these two were assessed based on two different water quality objectives values: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC) and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32961 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. LOEs 35602 and 7679 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329612012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21937SilverWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved60None of the 6 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for silver.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion maximum concentrations (1-hour average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at station 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219102012Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE No. 32961 and 7637 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, these two LOEs were not combined for a use rating determination because these two were assessed based on two different water quality objectives values: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC) and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32961 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. LOEs 35602 and 7679 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76372010State Reviewed Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR hardness dependent criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Lead,Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218692012Simazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 22 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356252012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168127SimazineMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Simazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for Simazine is 4 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218692012Simazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 22 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76722010State Reviewed Atrazine | SimazineMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved160Sixteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.001 mg/l Atrazine, and 0.004 mg/l Simazine (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Sixteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. No samples were collected from the Imperial Dame grate location in 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002). 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218692012Simazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 22 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356222012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168124SimazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Simazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Simazine is 90 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216162012Specific Conductance Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 22 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76822010State Reviewed Specific ConductanceMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen measurements were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total measurements, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 1600 umhos for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsMeasurements were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water quality measurements were collected. Water quality measurements were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Measurements were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were measured in May and October 2002. An extra measurement was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216162012Specific Conductance Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 22 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352742012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167696Specific ConductivityMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterNone50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: None of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Conductivity(Us).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The California Secondary MCL for specific conductance is 1600 uS/cm (Title 22 California Code of Regulations).1.Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR title 22 section 64449.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino292232012Streptococcus, fecal Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess fecal Streptococcus consistent with Listing Policy section 3.3. No evaluation guidelines for the total density of fecal Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the total density of fecal Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295052010State Reviewed Streptococcus, fecalWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal14 Fourteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. No samples were collected in 2003 from this location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219572012Styrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7656 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76562010State Reviewed Styrene | Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.1 mg/l Styrene, and 0.15 mg/l Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino321352012Sulfates Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the California Secondary MCLs and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   345682012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 26200SulfatesMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60None of the 6 samples were greater than the Secondary MCLs objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) apply to ambient waters under the Colorado River Basin Region's narrative "Chemical Constituents" objective. The SMCL for Sulfates (SO4) is 500 mg/L.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215762012Tetrachloroethylene/PCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment cycle, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 7649 and 35378 are combined with each other for a use rating determination but the total sample size wasn't sufficient to determine if water quality objective is met therefore both of LOEs received a use rating of insufficient information. LOEs 35374 and 46761 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467612012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215762012Tetrachloroethylene/PCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment cycle, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 7649 and 35378 are combined with each other for a use rating determination but the total sample size wasn't sufficient to determine if water quality objective is met therefore both of LOEs received a use rating of insufficient information. LOEs 35374 and 46761 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353782012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168147Tetrachloroethylene/PCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Tetrachloroethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Tetrachloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.8 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215762012Tetrachloroethylene/PCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment cycle, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 7649 and 35378 are combined with each other for a use rating determination but the total sample size wasn't sufficient to determine if water quality objective is met therefore both of LOEs received a use rating of insufficient information. LOEs 35374 and 46761 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353742012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168143Tetrachloroethylene/PCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Tetrachloroethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Tetrachloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 8.85 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215762012Tetrachloroethylene/PCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment cycle, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 7649 and 35378 are combined with each other for a use rating determination but the total sample size wasn't sufficient to determine if water quality objective is met therefore both of LOEs received a use rating of insufficient information. LOEs 35374 and 46761 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   272122010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215762012Tetrachloroethylene/PCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment cycle, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 7649 and 35378 are combined with each other for a use rating determination but the total sample size wasn't sufficient to determine if water quality objective is met therefore both of LOEs received a use rating of insufficient information. LOEs 35374 and 46761 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215762012Tetrachloroethylene/PCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment cycle, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 7649 and 35378 are combined with each other for a use rating determination but the total sample size wasn't sufficient to determine if water quality objective is met therefore both of LOEs received a use rating of insufficient information. LOEs 35374 and 46761 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76492010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220492012Thiobencarb/Bolero Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded either the secondary drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353872012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168156Thiobencarb/BoleroMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Thiobencarb.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The California Secondary MCL for thiobencarb is 0.001 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations).1.Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR title 22 section 64449.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220492012Thiobencarb/Bolero Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded either the secondary drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353832012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168152Thiobencarb/BoleroWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Thiobencarb.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Thiobencarb is 1.4 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220492012Thiobencarb/Bolero Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded either the secondary drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220492012Thiobencarb/Bolero Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded either the secondary drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76792010State Reviewed Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220552012Toluene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353932012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168162TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Toluene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Toluene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 200,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220552012Toluene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220552012Toluene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353972012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168166TolueneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Toluene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for Toluene is 150 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220552012Toluene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   272112010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220552012Toluene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220552012Toluene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76522010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306642012Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460052012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671375Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306642012Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460062012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671376Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino289212012Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroeum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved and sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295772010State Reviewed Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as DieselWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal14 Fourteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines forthe sediment fractions Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel, used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics (dro), for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino289212012Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroeum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved and sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295042010State Reviewed Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as DieselWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved13 Thirteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 4/2003 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel, used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics (dro), for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Thirteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed from May of 2002 through May of 2003 from the upstream of the Imperial Dam location. Samples were collected in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino321382012Total Trihalomethane (TTHM) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the California MCLs and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   330412012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 24080Total Trihalomethane (TTHM)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20None of the 2 samples exceeded the guidelines.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.(Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin, 2006). California primary Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) apply to ambient waters under the (Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin) "Chemical Constituents" objective. The primary MCL for Total Trihalomethanes is 0.080 mg/L (80 ug/L).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006 2.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  The samples were collected at station 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates).The samples were collected on 10/25/2005, and 5/3/2006. SWAMP (2002) procedure.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306652012Toxaphene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459562012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671395ToxapheneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for toxaphene in fish tissue is 4.3 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306652012Toxaphene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459572012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671396ToxapheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. One composite (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Toxaphene concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/7/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220562012Trichloroethylene/TCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment cycle, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 7649 and 35406 are combined with each other for a use rating determination but the total sample size weren't sufficient to determine if water quality objective is met therefore both of LOEs received a use rating of insufficient information. LOEs 35402 and 46761 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467612012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220562012Trichloroethylene/TCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment cycle, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 7649 and 35406 are combined with each other for a use rating determination but the total sample size weren't sufficient to determine if water quality objective is met therefore both of LOEs received a use rating of insufficient information. LOEs 35402 and 46761 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   272122010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220562012Trichloroethylene/TCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment cycle, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 7649 and 35406 are combined with each other for a use rating determination but the total sample size weren't sufficient to determine if water quality objective is met therefore both of LOEs received a use rating of insufficient information. LOEs 35402 and 46761 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220562012Trichloroethylene/TCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment cycle, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 7649 and 35406 are combined with each other for a use rating determination but the total sample size weren't sufficient to determine if water quality objective is met therefore both of LOEs received a use rating of insufficient information. LOEs 35402 and 46761 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76492010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Seventeen samples were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 11 acceptable water quality sample were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220562012Trichloroethylene/TCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment cycle, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 7649 and 35406 are combined with each other for a use rating determination but the total sample size weren't sufficient to determine if water quality objective is met therefore both of LOEs received a use rating of insufficient information. LOEs 35402 and 46761 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354062012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168175Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Trichloroethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe trichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 2.7 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino220562012Trichloroethylene/TCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27212 is replaced by the LOE No. 46761 because LOE No. 27212 and 7649 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Although total of seventeen samples were collected, LOE No. 27212 had a total sample size of eleven due to the higher reporting limit than the objective. Because of wrong objective application in the last assessment cycle, the number of the total sample discrepancy had occurred between LOE No. 27212 and LOE No. 46761. Thus, LOE No. 27212 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 7649 and 35406 are combined with each other for a use rating determination but the total sample size weren't sufficient to determine if water quality objective is met therefore both of LOEs received a use rating of insufficient information. LOEs 35402 and 46761 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354022012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168171Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Trichloroethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Trichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 81 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219582012Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7656 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76562010State Reviewed Styrene | Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.1 mg/l Styrene, and 0.15 mg/l Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217892012Turbidity Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7606 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle.Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 17 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76062010State Reviewed TurbidityMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved172Seventeen water quality measurements were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total measurements, two exceeded the CDPH SMCL . The exceedances were found in measurements collected on 4/09/2003 upstream of Imperial Dam, and 5/10/2005 at Imperial Dam grates (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 5 NTU for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsMeasurements were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water quality measurements were collected. Water quality measurements were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Measurements were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were measured in May and October 2002. An extra measurement was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location inn April 2003 The exceedances were found in measurements collected from 4/09/2003 through 5/10/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino219202012Vinyl chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7659 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76592010State Reviewed Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | Vinyl chlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 4000 ug/l Methyl Bromide, 1600 ug/l Dichloromethane, and 525 ug/l Vinyl Chloride (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217232012Xylenes (total) (mixed) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   330422012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 24099Xylenes (total) (mixed)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Two samples were collected and no samples exceeded the objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. California Maximum Containment Levels are incorporated by reference through the basin plan (Colorado River Basin Plan 2006). The California MCL for Xylenes is 1.75 mg/L.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected at Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates-715CRIDG1.Samples were collected between 10/25/2005-5/3/2006. The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino217232012Xylenes (total) (mixed) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218252012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE No. 32567 and 7637 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, these two LOEs were assessed based on two different water quality objectives values: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC) and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32567 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. LOEs 35409 and 7679 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76252010State Reviewed ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Seventeen sediment samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) of 459 mg/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218252012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE No. 32567 and 7637 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, these two LOEs were assessed based on two different water quality objectives values: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC) and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32567 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. LOEs 35409 and 7679 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76372010State Reviewed Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR hardness dependent criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Lead,Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218252012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE No. 32567 and 7637 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, these two LOEs were assessed based on two different water quality objectives values: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC) and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32567 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. LOEs 35409 and 7679 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76792010State Reviewed Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218252012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE No. 32567 and 7637 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, these two LOEs were assessed based on two different water quality objectives values: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC) and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32567 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. LOEs 35409 and 7679 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   325672012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21943ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60None of the 6 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for zinc.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at station 715CRIDG1 (Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218252012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE No. 32567 and 7637 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, these two LOEs were assessed based on two different water quality objectives values: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC) and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32567 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. LOEs 35409 and 7679 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354092012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168180ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The California Secondary MCL for zinc is 5.0 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations).1.Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR title 22 section 64449.Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino218252012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Although LOE No. 32567 and 7637 were assessed for the same beneficial uses, these two LOEs were assessed based on two different water quality objectives values: one was assessed based on the CTR criterion maximum concentration (CMC) and another was assessed based on the CTR criterion continuous concentration (CCC). Thus, LOE No. 32567 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. LOEs 35409 and 7679 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354122012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168183ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for zinc is 459 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino292522012alpha-Chlordene | gama-Chlordene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess alpha-Chlordene, and gamma-Chlordene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene or the sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene or the sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295732010State Reviewed alpha-Chlordene | gama-ChlordeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal15 Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino292522012alpha-Chlordene | gama-Chlordene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess alpha-Chlordene, and gamma-Chlordene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene or the sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene or the sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294942010State Reviewed alpha-Chlordene | gama-ChlordeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved15 Fifteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216312012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35018 is combined with LOE No. 46763 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35023 is combined with LOE No. 7652 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350232012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167789alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule criteria for alpha-endosulfan to protect human health for waters that include the designated use of MUN is 110 ug/L.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216312012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35018 is combined with LOE No. 46763 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35023 is combined with LOE No. 7652 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350182012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167783alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan I criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216312012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35018 is combined with LOE No. 46763 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35023 is combined with LOE No. 7652 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   272112010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216312012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35018 is combined with LOE No. 46763 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35023 is combined with LOE No. 7652 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76342010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location inn April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216312012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35018 is combined with LOE No. 46763 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35023 is combined with LOE No. 7652 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350272012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167793alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan I criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for alpha-endosulfan is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216312012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35018 is combined with LOE No. 46763 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35023 is combined with LOE No. 7652 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216312012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35018 is combined with LOE No. 46763 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35023 is combined with LOE No. 7652 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76522010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215862012alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35136 is combined with LOE No. 46763 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35152 is combined with LOE No. 7652 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215862012alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35136 is combined with LOE No. 46763 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35152 is combined with LOE No. 7652 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351522012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167873Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), alphaMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, alpha.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe BHC, alpha criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.0039 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215862012alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35136 is combined with LOE No. 46763 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35152 is combined with LOE No. 7652 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351362012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167869Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), alphaCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, alpha.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe BHC, alpha criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.013 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215862012alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35136 is combined with LOE No. 46763 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35152 is combined with LOE No. 7652 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76522010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215862012alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35136 is combined with LOE No. 46763 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 35152 is combined with LOE No. 7652 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   272112010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215872012beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35169 is combined with LOE No. 46763 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 7652 is combined with LOE No. 35173 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351732012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167882Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), betaMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, beta.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe BHC, beta criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 0.014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215872012beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35169 is combined with LOE No. 46763 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 7652 is combined with LOE No. 35173 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215872012beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35169 is combined with LOE No. 46763 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 7652 is combined with LOE No. 35173 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351692012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167878Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), betaCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, Beta.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe BHC, beta criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.046 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215872012beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35169 is combined with LOE No. 46763 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 7652 is combined with LOE No. 35173 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   272112010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215872012beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 35169 is combined with LOE No. 46763 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 7652 is combined with LOE No. 35173 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76522010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216412012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35025 and 46763 were combined. LOEs 35040 and 7652 were also combined.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350402012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167807beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule criteria for beta-endosulfan to protect human health for waters that include the designated use of MUN is 110 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216412012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35025 and 46763 were combined. LOEs 35040 and 7652 were also combined.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216412012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35025 and 46763 were combined. LOEs 35040 and 7652 were also combined.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350442012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167811beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan II criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for beta-endosulfan is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216412012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35025 and 46763 were combined. LOEs 35040 and 7652 were also combined.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76342010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location inn April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216412012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35025 and 46763 were combined. LOEs 35040 and 7652 were also combined.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350352012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167801beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan II criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216412012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35025 and 46763 were combined. LOEs 35040 and 7652 were also combined.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76522010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216412012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 35025 and 46763 were combined. LOEs 35040 and 7652 were also combined.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 23 water exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   272112010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215642012cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 samples exceeded the California drinking MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino215642012cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 samples exceeded the California drinking MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352372012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167737cis-1,2-DichloroethyleneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Dichloroethylene, cis 1,2-.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for Dichloroethylene, cis 1,2- is 6 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino290792012cis-Nonachlor | trans-Nonachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess alpha-Nonachlor, and trans-Nonachlor consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294902010State Reviewed cis-Nonachlor | trans-NonachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved15 Fifteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino290792012cis-Nonachlor | trans-Nonachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess alpha-Nonachlor, and trans-Nonachlor consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295452010State Reviewed cis-Nonachlor | trans-NonachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal15 Fifteen sediment samples were generally collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October from the Imperial Dam grate location. No sample was collected from the Imperial Dam grate location in April of 2003. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October of 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April of 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino214972012m-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46763 is combined with LOE No. 34752 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 34768 is combined with LOE No. 7652 for the aforementioned reasons. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347522012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675311, 3 -dichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 2,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino214972012m-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46763 is combined with LOE No. 34752 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 34768 is combined with LOE No. 7652 for the aforementioned reasons. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347682012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675351, 3 -dichlorobenzeneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms is 400 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino214972012m-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46763 is combined with LOE No. 34752 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 34768 is combined with LOE No. 7652 for the aforementioned reasons. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino214972012m-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46763 is combined with LOE No. 34752 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 34768 is combined with LOE No. 7652 for the aforementioned reasons. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76522010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino214972012m-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating. LOE No. 46763 is combined with LOE No. 34752 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. LOE No. 34768 is combined with LOE No. 7652 for the aforementioned reasons. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   272112010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino290912012o,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)) | o,p'-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | o,p'-DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | p,p'-DDMU Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, and p,p'-DDMU consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294972010State Reviewed o,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)) | o,p'-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | o,p'-DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | p,p'-DDMUWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved15 Fifteen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino226672012o-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 34746 and 46763 were combined. LOEs 34762 and 7652 were also combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347462012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167495o-DichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 17,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino226672012o-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 34746 and 46763 were combined. LOEs 34762 and 7652 were also combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   272112010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino226672012o-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 34746 and 46763 were combined. LOEs 34762 and 7652 were also combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino226672012o-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 34746 and 46763 were combined. LOEs 34762 and 7652 were also combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347622012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167499o-DichlorobenzeneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene is 600 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations ).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino226672012o-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 34746 and 46763 were combined. LOEs 34762 and 7652 were also combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76522010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino226672012o-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 34746 and 46763 were combined. LOEs 34762 and 7652 were also combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino214982012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 34773 and 46763 were combined. LOEs 34789 and 7652 were also combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   272112010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino214982012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 34773 and 46763 were combined. LOEs 34789 and 7652 were also combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76522010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 0.050 ug/l Mercury, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino214982012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 34773 and 46763 were combined. LOEs 34789 and 7652 were also combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76742010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.002 mg/l Mercury, 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino214982012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 34773 and 46763 were combined. LOEs 34789 and 7652 were also combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved170Seventeen water samples were collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms only from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.013 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene,0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 17000 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene,and 200000ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. An extra sample was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino214982012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 34773 and 46763 were combined. LOEs 34789 and 7652 were also combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347732012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675401, 4 -dichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 2,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates - 715CRIDG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino214982012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 27211 is replaced by the LOE No. 46763 because LOE No. 27211 and 7652 were assessed using the same water quality objective for two different beneficial uses in last assessment cycle. Thus, LOE No. 27211 is not included in the final use rating, and none of other samples exceed the water quality objective. LOEs 34773 and 46763 were combined. LOEs 34789 and 7652 were also combined to determine the use rating.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347892012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675441, 4 -dichlorobenzeneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe California Maximum Contaminant Level for 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene is 5 ug/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations).1.Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR  Data for this line of evidence for Colorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216152012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   323642012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21690pHWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone50None of the 5 samples were outside the pH range specified in the water quality objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGBasin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected at station 715CRIDG1 - Colorado River at Imperial Dam Grates.Data were collected during October 2005, May 2006 and 2007, October 2007, and April 2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino216152012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   77082010State Reviewed pHWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone90Seventeen water quality measurements were taken at 6 locations along this segment of the Colorado River. Eight measurements could not be used in this assessment because of equipment failure or lack of proper documentation. The 9 acceptable measurements were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 1 location. Of these total measurements, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Measurements were collected from the following Colorado River locations: downstream of Parker Dam, from three small associated lakes on the River (Ferguson, Taylor and Squaw), upstream of Imperial Dam, and at the Imperial Dam grates.Seventeen water quality measurements were collected. Water quality measurements were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Imperial Dam grate location. Measurements were usually collected in May and October. The rest of the locations were measured in May and October 2002. An extra measurement was collected from the upstream of Imperial Dam location in April 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFerguson LakeCAL7155000020091208211209Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104003938150301041308Imperial306672012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five sediment samples exceeded one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461152012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671608AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ferguson Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Ferguson Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ferguson Lake_BOG - 715TF0091]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 8/29/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFerguson LakeCAL7155000020091208211209Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104003938150301041308Imperial306742012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline or the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461172012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671610ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ferguson Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Ferguson Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ferguson Lake_BOG - 715TF0091]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 8/29/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFerguson LakeCAL7155000020091208211209Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104003938150301041308Imperial306742012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline or the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461162012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671609ChlordaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ferguson Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Ferguson Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ferguson Lake_BOG - 715TF0091]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 8/29/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFerguson LakeCAL7155000020091208211209Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104003938150301041308Imperial306762012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461212012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671614DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ferguson Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Ferguson Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ferguson Lake_BOG - 715TF0091]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 8/29/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFerguson LakeCAL7155000020091208211209Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104003938150301041308Imperial306762012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461202012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671613DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ferguson Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Ferguson Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ferguson Lake_BOG - 715TF0091]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 8/29/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFerguson LakeCAL7155000020091208211209Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104003938150301041308Imperial321512012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline or the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461242012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671617EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ferguson Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Ferguson Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ferguson Lake_BOG - 715TF0091]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 8/29/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFerguson LakeCAL7155000020091208211209Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104003938150301041308Imperial321512012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline or the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461302012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671618EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ferguson Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Ferguson Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ferguson Lake_BOG - 715TF0091]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 8/29/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFerguson LakeCAL7155000020091208211209Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104003938150301041308Imperial321502012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five sediment samples exceeded one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461372012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671621HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ferguson Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Ferguson Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ferguson Lake_BOG - 715TF0091]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 8/29/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFerguson LakeCAL7155000020091208211209Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104003938150301041308Imperial321562012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461432012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671622Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ferguson Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in fish tissue is 0.93 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking WaterData for this line of evidence for Ferguson Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ferguson Lake_BOG - 715TF0091]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 8/29/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFerguson LakeCAL7155000020091208211209Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104003938150301041308Imperial321562012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461442012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671623Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ferguson Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Ferguson Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ferguson Lake_BOG - 715TF0091]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 8/29/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFerguson LakeCAL7155000020091208211209Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104003938150301041308Imperial321572012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461512012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671624Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ferguson Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobenzene. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue is 2.8 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Ferguson Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ferguson Lake_BOG - 715TF0091]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 8/29/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFerguson LakeCAL7155000020091208211209Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104003938150301041308Imperial321522012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline or the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461312012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671619Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ferguson Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in fish tissue is 4.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Ferguson Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ferguson Lake_BOG - 715TF0091]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 8/29/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFerguson LakeCAL7155000020091208211209Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104003938150301041308Imperial321522012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline or the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461362012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671620Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ferguson Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Ferguson Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ferguson Lake_BOG - 715TF0091]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 8/29/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFerguson LakeCAL7155000020091208211209Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104003938150301041308Imperial306712012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461522012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671625MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ferguson Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. Ten composites (1 fish per composite) were generated from one species (largemouth bass) and were averaged. Three composites (1 largemouth bass and 2 common carp) could not be used in the assessment due to total fish lengths that did not fall within lengths noted in the guideline. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish (150 - 500 mm; fillet wet weight) is 0.20 mg/kg.1.Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001Data for this line of evidence for Ferguson Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ferguson Lake_BOG - 715TF0091]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 8/29/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFerguson LakeCAL7155000020091208211209Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104003938150301041308Imperial307112012Mirex Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutants. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One sample for each pollutant was collected but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Since no data available, staff can't determine if the water quality objectives are met.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461592012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671626MirexCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ferguson Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Mirex. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in fish tissue is 0.28 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens.Data for this line of evidence for Ferguson Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ferguson Lake_BOG - 715TF0091]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 8/29/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFerguson LakeCAL7155000020091208211209Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104003938150301041308Imperial321532012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline or the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461252012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671628PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ferguson Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total PCB concentration of 500 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Ferguson Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ferguson Lake_BOG - 715TF0091]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 8/29/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFerguson LakeCAL7155000020091208211209Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104003938150301041308Imperial321532012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline or the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671627PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ferguson Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for polychlorinated biphenyls in fish tissue is 2.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Ferguson Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ferguson Lake_BOG - 715TF0091]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 8/29/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFerguson LakeCAL7155000020091208211209Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104003938150301041308Imperial321582012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461262012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671629SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ferguson Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenium in fish tissue is 7.4 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A background dietary consumption rate of 0.114 mg/day is applied for this micronutrient.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Ferguson Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ferguson Lake_BOG - 715TF0091]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 8/29/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFerguson LakeCAL7155000020091208211209Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104003938150301041308Imperial321542012Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline or the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461192012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671612Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ferguson Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Ferguson Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ferguson Lake_BOG - 715TF0091]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 8/29/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFerguson LakeCAL7155000020091208211209Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104003938150301041308Imperial321542012Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline or the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461182012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671611Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ferguson Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Ferguson Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ferguson Lake_BOG - 715TF0091]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 8/29/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFerguson LakeCAL7155000020091208211209Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104003938150301041308Imperial321552012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline or the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461222012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671615alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ferguson Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in fish tissue is 13,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Ferguson Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ferguson Lake_BOG - 715TF0091]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 8/29/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFerguson LakeCAL7155000020091208211209Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104003938150301041308Imperial321552012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline or the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461232012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671616alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ferguson Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Endosulfan concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Ferguson Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ferguson Lake_BOG - 715TF0091]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 8/29/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFig LakeCAL7231000020111217103758Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204014784,18100204014786181002040902Imperial306782012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459582012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671397AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. Six composites (3 fish per cpmposite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK]Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFig LakeCAL7231000020111217103758Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204014784,18100204014786181002040902Imperial313752012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twelve samples were collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   468702012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) ArsenicCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. Twelve composites were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites comprised of 1 fish per composite for Tilapia spp. and 3 fish per composite for common carp. Twelve samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Not SpecifiedAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for arsenic in fish tissue is 0.0034 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. It is assumed that 10% of the total arsenic is present as inorganic arsenic. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFig LakeCAL7231000020111217103758Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204014784,18100204014786181002040902Imperial321612012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   468912012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) CadmiumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. Twelve composites were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites comprised of 1 fish per composite for Tilapia spp. and 3 fish per composite for common carp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for cadmium in fish tissue is 2.2 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFig LakeCAL7231000020111217103758Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204014784,18100204014786181002040902Imperial313762012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded either the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goals or the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   468712012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) ChlordaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFig LakeCAL7231000020111217103758Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204014784,18100204014786181002040902Imperial313762012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded either the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goals or the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459592012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671401ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK]Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFig LakeCAL7231000020111217103758Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204014784,18100204014786181002040902Imperial321622012Chlorpyrifos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   468782012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) ChlorpyrifosCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for chlorpyrifos in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFig LakeCAL7231000020111217103758Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204014784,18100204014786181002040902Imperial321642012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   468802012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) DiazinonCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for diazinon in fish tissue is 1,500 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFig LakeCAL7231000020111217103758Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204014784,18100204014786181002040902Imperial313772012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459682012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671407DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK]Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFig LakeCAL7231000020111217103758Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204014784,18100204014786181002040902Imperial313772012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   468812012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. Six composites were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites comprised of 1 fish per composite for Tilapia spp. and 3 fish per composite for common carp. Six samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFig LakeCAL7231000020111217103758Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204014784,18100204014786181002040902Imperial321672012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded either the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goals or the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459692012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671409EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Total endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Endosulfan concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK]Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFig LakeCAL7231000020111217103758Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204014784,18100204014786181002040902Imperial321672012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded either the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goals or the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   468822012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) EndosulfanCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Total endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in fish tissue is 13,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFig LakeCAL7231000020111217103758Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204014784,18100204014786181002040902Imperial321682012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded either the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goals or the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   468832012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFig LakeCAL7231000020111217103758Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204014784,18100204014786181002040902Imperial321682012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded either the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goals or the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459702012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671411EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK]Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFig LakeCAL7231000020111217103758Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204014784,18100204014786181002040902Imperial321592012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459792012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671414HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK]Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFig LakeCAL7231000020111217103758Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204014784,18100204014786181002040902Imperial321742012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459802012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671416Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK]Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFig LakeCAL7231000020111217103758Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204014784,18100204014786181002040902Imperial321742012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   468852012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. Six composites were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites comprised of 1 fish per composite for Tilapia spp. and 3 fish per composite for common carp. Six samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in fish tissue is 0.93 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking WaterData for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFig LakeCAL7231000020111217103758Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204014784,18100204014786181002040902Imperial321652012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   468862012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobenzene. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue is 2.8 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFig LakeCAL7231000020111217103758Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204014784,18100204014786181002040902Imperial321702012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded either the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goals or the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459782012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671413Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK]Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFig LakeCAL7231000020111217103758Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204014784,18100204014786181002040902Imperial321702012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded either the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goals or the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   468842012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in fish tissue is 4.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFig LakeCAL7231000020111217103758Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204014784,18100204014786181002040902Imperial313782012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   468872012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. Twelve composites were generated from two species: common carp and Tilapia spp. Composites comprised of 1 fish per composite for Tilapia spp. and 3 fish per composite for common carp. Composites comprised of 1 fish per composite. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish (150 - 500 mm; fillet wet weight) is 0.20 mg/kg.1.Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFig LakeCAL7231000020111217103758Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204014784,18100204014786181002040902Imperial321662012Mirex Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six fish tissue samples were collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   468882012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) MirexCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Mirex. Six composites were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites comprised of 1 fish per composite for Tilapia spp. and 3 fish per composite for common carp. Six samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in fish tissue is 0.28 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens.Data for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFig LakeCAL7231000020111217103758Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204014784,18100204014786181002040902Imperial321712012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded either the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goals or the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459812012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671421PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites were averaged for species collected at the same time and location. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total PCB concentration of 500 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK]Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFig LakeCAL7231000020111217103758Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204014784,18100204014786181002040902Imperial321712012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded either the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goals or the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   468892012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites were averaged for species collected at the same time and location. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for polychlorinated biphenyls in fish tissue is 2.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFig LakeCAL7231000020111217103758Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204014784,18100204014786181002040902Imperial321762012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   468902012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. Twelve composites were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites comprised of 1 fish per composite for Tilapia spp. and 3 fish per composite for common carp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenium in fish tissue is 7.4 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A background dietary consumption rate of 0.114 mg/day is applied for this micronutrient.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFig LakeCAL7231000020111217103758Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204014784,18100204014786181002040902Imperial321722012Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded either the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goals or the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   468792012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy..1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFig LakeCAL7231000020111217103758Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204014784,18100204014786181002040902Imperial321722012Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded either the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goals or the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459672012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671404Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK]Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFig LakeCAL7231000020111217103758Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204014784,18100204014786181002040902Imperial321752012Toxaphene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   468922012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) ToxapheneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. Six composites were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites comprised of 1 fish per composite for Tilapia spp. and 3 fish per composite for common carp. Six samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for toxaphene in fish tissue is 4.3 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK].Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionFig LakeCAL7231000020111217103758Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204014784,18100204014786181002040902Imperial321752012Toxaphene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459892012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671424ToxapheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Fig Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. Six composites (3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: Tilapia spp. and common carp. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Toxaphene concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Fig Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Fig Lake - 723FIGLAK]Data was collected on a single day 11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionGene Wash ReservoirCAL7140000020091208211915Lake & Reservoir 10714.00000015030101002126150301010713San Bernardino306832012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461272012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671630AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Gene Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Gene Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Gene Wash Reservoir - 714TG0155]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionGene Wash ReservoirCAL7140000020091208211915Lake & Reservoir 10714.00000015030101002126150301010713San Bernardino306822012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded either the OEHHA fish contaminant goal or the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461322012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671632ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Gene Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Gene Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Gene Wash Reservoir - 714TG0155]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionGene Wash ReservoirCAL7140000020091208211915Lake & Reservoir 10714.00000015030101002126150301010713San Bernardino306822012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded either the OEHHA fish contaminant goal or the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465842012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) ChlordaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Gene Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Gene Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Gene Wash Reservoir - 714TG0155]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007. Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionGene Wash ReservoirCAL7140000020091208211915Lake & Reservoir 10714.00000015030101002126150301010713San Bernardino306842012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461382012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671636DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Gene Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Gene Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Gene Wash Reservoir - 714TG0155]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionGene Wash ReservoirCAL7140000020091208211915Lake & Reservoir 10714.00000015030101002126150301010713San Bernardino306842012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465862012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Gene Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Gene Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Gene Wash Reservoir - 714TG0155]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007. Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionGene Wash ReservoirCAL7140000020091208211915Lake & Reservoir 10714.00000015030101002126150301010713San Bernardino321782012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded either the OEHHA fish contaminant goal or the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465882012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Gene Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Gene Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Gene Wash Reservoir - 714TG0155]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007. Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionGene Wash ReservoirCAL7140000020091208211915Lake & Reservoir 10714.00000015030101002126150301010713San Bernardino321782012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded either the OEHHA fish contaminant goal or the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461402012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671640EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Gene Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Gene Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Gene Wash Reservoir - 714TG0155]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionGene Wash ReservoirCAL7140000020091208211915Lake & Reservoir 10714.00000015030101002126150301010713San Bernardino321772012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461462012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671643HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Gene Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Gene Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Gene Wash Reservoir - 714TG0155]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionGene Wash ReservoirCAL7140000020091208211915Lake & Reservoir 10714.00000015030101002126150301010713San Bernardino321832012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461472012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671645Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Gene Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Gene Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Gene Wash Reservoir - 714TG0155]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionGene Wash ReservoirCAL7140000020091208211915Lake & Reservoir 10714.00000015030101002126150301010713San Bernardino321832012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465902012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Gene Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in fish tissue is 0.93 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking WaterData for this line of evidence for Gene Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Gene Wash Reservoir - 714TG0155]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007. Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionGene Wash ReservoirCAL7140000020091208211915Lake & Reservoir 10714.00000015030101002126150301010713San Bernardino321842012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465912012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Gene Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobenzene. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue is 2.8 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Gene Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Gene Wash Reservoir - 714TG0155]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007. Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionGene Wash ReservoirCAL7140000020091208211915Lake & Reservoir 10714.00000015030101002126150301010713San Bernardino321792012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded either the OEHHA fish contaminant goal or the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461452012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671642Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Gene Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Gene Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Gene Wash Reservoir - 714TG0155]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionGene Wash ReservoirCAL7140000020091208211915Lake & Reservoir 10714.00000015030101002126150301010713San Bernardino321792012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded either the OEHHA fish contaminant goal or the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465892012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Gene Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in fish tissue is 4.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Gene Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Gene Wash Reservoir - 714TG0155]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007. Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionGene Wash ReservoirCAL7140000020091208211915Lake & Reservoir 10714.00000015030101002126150301010713San Bernardino306852012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465922012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Gene Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. Ten composites (1 fish per composite) were generated from one species (largemouth bass) and were averaged. Three composites (1 largemouth bass and 2 common carp) could not be used in the assessment due to total fish lengths that did not fall within lengths noted in the guideline. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish (150 - 500 mm; fillet wet weight) is 0.20 mg/kg.1.Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001Data for this line of evidence for Gene Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Gene Wash Reservoir - 714TG0155]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007. Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionGene Wash ReservoirCAL7140000020091208211915Lake & Reservoir 10714.00000015030101002126150301010713San Bernardino321852012Mirex Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One sample was collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465932012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) MirexCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Gene Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Mirex. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in fish tissue is 0.28 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens.Data for this line of evidence for Gene Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Gene Wash Reservoir - 714TG0155]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007. Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionGene Wash ReservoirCAL7140000020091208211915Lake & Reservoir 10714.00000015030101002126150301010713San Bernardino321802012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded either the OEHHA fish contaminant goal or the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461532012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671650PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Gene Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total PCB concentration of 500 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Gene Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Gene Wash Reservoir - 714TG0155]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionGene Wash ReservoirCAL7140000020091208211915Lake & Reservoir 10714.00000015030101002126150301010713San Bernardino321802012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded either the OEHHA fish contaminant goal or the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465942012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Gene Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for polychlorinated biphenyls in fish tissue is 2.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Gene Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Gene Wash Reservoir - 714TG0155]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007. Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionGene Wash ReservoirCAL7140000020091208211915Lake & Reservoir 10714.00000015030101002126150301010713San Bernardino321862012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465952012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Gene Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. The 1 sample for common carp consisted of 2 composites (5 fish per composite) that were not independent and so were averaged. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenium in fish tissue is 7.4 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A background dietary consumption rate of 0.114 mg/day is applied for this micronutrient.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Gene Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Gene Wash Reservoir - 714TG0155]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007. Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionGene Wash ReservoirCAL7140000020091208211915Lake & Reservoir 10714.00000015030101002126150301010713San Bernardino321812012Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded either the OEHHA fish contaminant goal or the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465852012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Gene Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Gene Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Gene Wash Reservoir - 714TG0155]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007. Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionGene Wash ReservoirCAL7140000020091208211915Lake & Reservoir 10714.00000015030101002126150301010713San Bernardino321812012Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded either the OEHHA fish contaminant goal or the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461332012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671634Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Gene Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Gene Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Gene Wash Reservoir - 714TG0155]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionGene Wash ReservoirCAL7140000020091208211915Lake & Reservoir 10714.00000015030101002126150301010713San Bernardino321822012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded either the OEHHA fish contaminant goal or the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465872012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Gene Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in fish tissue is 13,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Gene Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Gene Wash Reservoir - 714TG0155]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007. Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionGene Wash ReservoirCAL7140000020091208211915Lake & Reservoir 10714.00000015030101002126150301010713San Bernardino321822012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded either the OEHHA fish contaminant goal or the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461392012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671638alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Gene Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Endosulfan concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Gene Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Gene Wash Reservoir - 714TG0155]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino2170520121, 1-dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7675 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino2919320121,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Chloroform, Methylene Bromide, Bromochloromethane, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane, 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropane, 2,2-Dichloropropane, and 1,1-Dichloropropene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chloroform, Methylene Bromide, Bromochloromethane, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane, 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropane, 2,2-Dichloropropane, or 1,1-Dichloropropene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chloroform, Methylene Bromide, Bromochloromethane, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane, 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropane, 2,2-Dichloropropane, or 1,1-Dichloropropene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294662010State Reviewed 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved2 Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chloroform, Methylene Bromide, Bromochloromethane, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane, 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropane, 2,2-Dichloropropane, or 1,1-Dichloropropene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino2174920121,1,1-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7662 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino2206120121,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Both lines of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270432010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10Two samples were taken at 1 location in the interior of the lake. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water quality sample was collected in 10/2002 at 1 location. This sample did not exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino2206120121,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Both lines of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76682010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | Benzene | Carbon tetrachlorideMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10Two samples were taken at 1 location in the interior of the lake. One water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water quality sample was collected in 10/2002 at 1 location. This sample did not exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.001 mg/l Benzene, 0.0005 mg/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.0005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, and 0.001 mg/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino2190720121,1,2-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7675 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 7648 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76482010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10Two samples were taken at 1 location in the interior of the lake. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water quality sample was collected in 10/2002 at 1 location. This sample did not exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino2190720121,1,2-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7675 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 7648 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino2170620121,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7675 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino2919720121,2,3-Trichlorobenzene | Chloroethane | Dichlorodifluoromethane | Methyl chloride (Chloromethane) | cis-1,3-Dichloropropene | trans-1,3-Dichloropropene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane, Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, and 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane, Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane, Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298022010State Reviewed 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene | Chloroethane | Dichlorodifluoromethane | Methyl chloride (Chloromethane) | cis-1,3-Dichloropropene | trans-1,3-DichloropropeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved1 One water sample was collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane, Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.One water sample was collected. The water sample was collected in 2002, in October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino2170220121,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7675 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino2915020121,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | Bromobenzene | Cumene | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) | n-Butylbenzene | n-Propylbenzene | sec-Butylbenzene | tert-Butylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, and tert-Butylbenzene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene or the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene or the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295202010State Reviewed delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal1 One sediment sample was collected and analyzed in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  A samples was collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.One sediment sample was collected. A sediment sample was collected in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino2915020121,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | Bromobenzene | Cumene | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) | n-Butylbenzene | n-Propylbenzene | sec-Butylbenzene | tert-Butylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, and tert-Butylbenzene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene or the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene or the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294642010State Reviewed 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | Bromobenzene | Cumene | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) | n-Butylbenzene | n-Propylbenzene | sec-Butylbenzene | tert-ButylbenzeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved2 Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino2206720121,2-Dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three lines of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 water sample exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters, or the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270432010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10Two samples were taken at 1 location in the interior of the lake. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water quality sample was collected in 10/2002 at 1 location. This sample did not exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino2206720121,2-Dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three lines of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 water sample exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters, or the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76682010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | Benzene | Carbon tetrachlorideMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10Two samples were taken at 1 location in the interior of the lake. One water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water quality sample was collected in 10/2002 at 1 location. This sample did not exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.001 mg/l Benzene, 0.0005 mg/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.0005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, and 0.001 mg/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino2206720121,2-Dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three lines of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 water sample exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters, or the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76482010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10Two samples were taken at 1 location in the interior of the lake. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water quality sample was collected in 10/2002 at 1 location. This sample did not exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino2195520121,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7675 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino2221320121,2-Dichloropropane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7675 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence Nos. 7648 and 27043 received Use Ratings of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76482010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10Two samples were taken at 1 location in the interior of the lake. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water quality sample was collected in 10/2002 at 1 location. This sample did not exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino2221320121,2-Dichloropropane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7675 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence Nos. 7648 and 27043 received Use Ratings of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino2221320121,2-Dichloropropane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7675 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence Nos. 7648 and 27043 received Use Ratings of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270432010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10Two samples were taken at 1 location in the interior of the lake. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water quality sample was collected in 10/2002 at 1 location. This sample did not exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino2897620121-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methylnaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, and 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methylnaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methylnaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methylnaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methylnaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295252010State Reviewed 1-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | AcenaphthyleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal2 Two sediment samples were collected and analyzed in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino2897620121-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methylnaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, and 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methylnaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methylnaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methylnaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methylnaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294692010State Reviewed 1-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | NaphthaleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved2 Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino2902820121-Methylphenanthrene | Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Phenanthrene, and 1-Methylphenanthrene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294682010State Reviewed 1-Methylphenanthrene | PhenanthreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved2 Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino2902820121-Methylphenanthrene | Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Phenanthrene, and 1-Methylphenanthrene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295232010State Reviewed 1-MethylphenanthreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal2 Two sediment samples were collected and analyzed in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino2901720122-Chlorotoluene | 4-Chlorotoluene | p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, and p-Cymene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fraction of p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294652010State Reviewed 2-Chlorotoluene | 4-Chlorotoluene | p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved2 Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino2919820122-Hexanone | Acetone | Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) | Methyl isobutyl ketone (Methyl-2-Pentanone) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, and 2-Hexanone consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, or 2-Hexanone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, or 2-Hexanone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294832010State Reviewed 2-Hexanone | Acetone | Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) | Methyl isobutyl ketone (Methyl-2-Pentanone)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved1 One water sample was collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, or 2-Hexanone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.One water sample was collected. The water sample was collected in 2002, in May. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino215262012Acenaphthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7651 and 27038 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76512010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino215262012Acenaphthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7651 and 27038 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270382010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino292102012Acenaphthene | Aldrin | Chlorpyrifos | Diazinon | Toxaphene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Acenaphthene, Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, and Toxaphene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295412010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Aldrin | Chlorpyrifos | Diazinon | ToxapheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal2 Two sediment samples were collected and analyzed in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino210802012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of two fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55662010State Reviewed AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal10One fish fillet sample was taken at 1 location in the lake. The sample was generally collected in 10/1987. This sample did not exceed the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the interior of Lake Havasu.One bluegill fillet composite sample was collected on 10/20/87. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino210802012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of two fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76332010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino210802012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of two fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461542012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671652AldrinCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino210802012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of two fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461552012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671653AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino218972012Aluminum Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7675 and 7678 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL or secondary MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76782010State Reviewed Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino218972012Aluminum Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7675 and 7678 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL or secondary MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino300942012Aluminum | Manganese | Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Aluminum, Manganese, and Silver consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295392010State Reviewed Aluminum | Manganese | SilverWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal2 Two sediment samples were collected and analyzed in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino290092012Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn | Terbutryn Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, and Terbutryn consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, or Terbutryn for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, or Terbutryn for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294772010State Reviewed Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn | TerbutrynWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved2 Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, or Terbutryn for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino217632012Anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 27038 and 7675 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270382010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino217632012Anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 27038 and 7675 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76512010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino290512012Anthracene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, and Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295352010State Reviewed Anthracene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Dibenz[a,h]anthraceneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal2 Two sediment samples were collected and analyzed in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino223942012Antimony Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 34 water samples exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from this water. None of 34 water samples exceed the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51462010State Reviewed Antimony | NickelMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal340Thirty-four water quality samples were taken at 5 locations on the lake, generally collected from 3/18/1997 through 1/28/2004. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 14 ug/l Antimony, and 610 ug/l Nickel (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Thirty-four discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/18/1997 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 2 discrete dates in 1997, 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino223942012Antimony Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 34 water samples exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from this water. None of 34 water samples exceed the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51602010State Reviewed Antimony | Cadmium | Mercury | NickelMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal340Sixty-nine water samples taken at 6 locations on the lake for Cadmium and Mercury. Thirty-five water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. Thirty-four water quality samples from 5 locations for Nickel and Antimony were all acceptable. The 34 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004 for Mercury and Cadmium, and 3/18/1997 through 1/28/2004 for Nickel and Antimony. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.006 mg/l Antimony, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.002 mg/l Mercury, and 0.1 mg/l Nickel (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-nine discrete samples were collected for Mercury and Cadmium, 34 for Nickel and Antimony. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004 for Mercury and Cadmium, 3/18/1997 through 1/28/2004 for Nickel and Antimony. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004 for Cadmium and Mercury. Samples were collected on 2 discrete dates in 1997, 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004 for Nickel and Antimony. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino223942012Antimony Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 34 water samples exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from this water. None of 34 water samples exceed the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270372010State Reviewed Antimony | NickelCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal340Thirty-four water quality samples were taken at 5 locations on the lake, generally collected from 3/18/1997 through 1/28/2004. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 14 ug/l Antimony, and 610 ug/l Nickel (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Thirty-four discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/18/1997 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 2 discrete dates in 1997, 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214822012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. LOEs 7684 and 5171 were combined. LOEs 7633 and 5138 were also combined to determine the use rating.Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 71 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria, or the drinking water MCL. None of 71 water samples exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51382010State Reviewed ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal690Sixty-nine water quality samples were taken at 6 locations on the lake, generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Of these total samples , none exceeded the CTR criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 340 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100100, 100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-nine discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214822012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. LOEs 7684 and 5171 were combined. LOEs 7633 and 5138 were also combined to determine the use rating.Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 71 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria, or the drinking water MCL. None of 71 water samples exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76992010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal20Two sediment samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples , none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214822012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. LOEs 7684 and 5171 were combined. LOEs 7633 and 5138 were also combined to determine the use rating.Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 71 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria, or the drinking water MCL. None of 71 water samples exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76842010State Reviewed Arsenic | CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected biannually in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples , none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effect Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effect Criteria for the protection of aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 0.25 mg/l Arsenic, and 15 mg/l Copper (USFWS, 1998).1.Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214822012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. LOEs 7684 and 5171 were combined. LOEs 7633 and 5138 were also combined to determine the use rating.Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 71 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria, or the drinking water MCL. None of 71 water samples exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51572010State Reviewed Arsenic | Barium | FluorideMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal690Sixty-nine water quality samples were taken at 6 locations on the lake, generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.050 mg/l Arsenic, 1 mg/l Barium, and 2 mg/l Fluoride (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100101, 100100),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-nine discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214822012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. LOEs 7684 and 5171 were combined. LOEs 7633 and 5138 were also combined to determine the use rating.Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 71 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria, or the drinking water MCL. None of 71 water samples exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76332010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214822012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. LOEs 7684 and 5171 were combined. LOEs 7633 and 5138 were also combined to determine the use rating.Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 71 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria, or the drinking water MCL. None of 71 water samples exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214822012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. LOEs 7684 and 5171 were combined. LOEs 7633 and 5138 were also combined to determine the use rating.Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 71 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria, or the drinking water MCL. None of 71 water samples exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51712010State Reviewed ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal690Sixty-nine water quality samples were taken at 6 locations on the lake, generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effects criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Bilogical Effects Criteria of 0.25 mg/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (USDOI, 1998).1.Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100101, 100100),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-nine discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino217742012Atrazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7671 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76712010State Reviewed Atrazine | SimazineMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.001 mg/l Atrazine, and 0.004 mg/l Simazine (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino290392012Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | Secbumeton Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Atroton, Prometon, and Secbumeton consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Atroton, Prometon, or Secbumeton for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Atroton, Prometon, or Secbumeton for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294782010State Reviewed Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | SecbumetonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved2 Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Atroton, Prometon, or Secbumeton for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino291392012Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Azinphos, methyl, and Azinphos, ethyl consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Azinphos, methyl, or Azinphos, ethyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Azinphos, methyl, or Azinphos, ethyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294722010State Reviewed Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved2 Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Azinphos, methyl, or Azinphos, ethyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214832012Barium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 69 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51572010State Reviewed Arsenic | Barium | FluorideMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal690Sixty-nine water quality samples were taken at 6 locations on the lake, generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.050 mg/l Arsenic, 1 mg/l Barium, and 2 mg/l Fluoride (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100101, 100100),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-nine discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220932012Benzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 27039, 5148, and 5162 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence Nos. 7648 and 7668 received Use Ratings of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. Since they are assessing the same standard, the results of Line of Evidence No. 7648 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence Nos. 5148 and 27039 in the Final Use Rating. Since they are assessing the same standard, the results of Line of Evidence No. 7668 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence No. 5162 in the Final Use Rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 8 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organism from these waters. None of 8 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51622010State Reviewed Benzene | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Twelve water samples were taken at 4 locations on the lake. Five water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 7 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/2000 through 7/5/2001. Of these total samples , none exceeded the CDPH MCL criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.001 mg/l Benzene, 0.013 mg/l Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098), near the north end (100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Twelve discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/2000 through 7/05/2001. Samples were collected on 3 discrete dates in 2000, and 5 dates in 2001. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220932012Benzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 27039, 5148, and 5162 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence Nos. 7648 and 7668 received Use Ratings of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. Since they are assessing the same standard, the results of Line of Evidence No. 7648 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence Nos. 5148 and 27039 in the Final Use Rating. Since they are assessing the same standard, the results of Line of Evidence No. 7668 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence No. 5162 in the Final Use Rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 8 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organism from these waters. None of 8 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76682010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | Benzene | Carbon tetrachlorideMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10Two samples were taken at 1 location in the interior of the lake. One water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water quality sample was collected in 10/2002 at 1 location. This sample did not exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.001 mg/l Benzene, 0.0005 mg/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.0005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, and 0.001 mg/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220932012Benzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 27039, 5148, and 5162 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence Nos. 7648 and 7668 received Use Ratings of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. Since they are assessing the same standard, the results of Line of Evidence No. 7648 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence Nos. 5148 and 27039 in the Final Use Rating. Since they are assessing the same standard, the results of Line of Evidence No. 7668 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence No. 5162 in the Final Use Rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 8 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organism from these waters. None of 8 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76482010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10Two samples were taken at 1 location in the interior of the lake. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water quality sample was collected in 10/2002 at 1 location. This sample did not exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220932012Benzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 27039, 5148, and 5162 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence Nos. 7648 and 7668 received Use Ratings of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. Since they are assessing the same standard, the results of Line of Evidence No. 7648 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence Nos. 5148 and 27039 in the Final Use Rating. Since they are assessing the same standard, the results of Line of Evidence No. 7668 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence No. 5162 in the Final Use Rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 8 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organism from these waters. None of 8 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51482010State Reviewed BenzeneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Twelve water samples were taken at 4 locations on the lake. Five water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 7 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/2000 through 7/05/2001. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 1.2 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098), near the north end (100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Twelve discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/2000 through 7/05/2001. Samples were collected on 3 discrete dates in 2000, and 5 dates in 2001. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220932012Benzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 27039, 5148, and 5162 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence Nos. 7648 and 7668 received Use Ratings of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. Since they are assessing the same standard, the results of Line of Evidence No. 7648 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence Nos. 5148 and 27039 in the Final Use Rating. Since they are assessing the same standard, the results of Line of Evidence No. 7668 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence No. 5162 in the Final Use Rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 8 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organism from these waters. None of 8 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270392010State Reviewed BenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Twelve water samples were taken at 4 locations on the lake. Five water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 7 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/2000 through 7/05/2001. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 1.2 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098), near the north end (100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Twelve discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/2000 through 7/05/2001. Samples were collected on 3 discrete dates in 2000, and 5 dates in 2001. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220102012Benzo(a)anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. This line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. This sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76612010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10Two samples were taken at 1 location in the interior of the lake. One water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water quality sample was collected in 10/2002 at 1 location. This sample did not exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene, and 11 ug/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220432012Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7675 and 7622 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76222010State Reviewed Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal20Two sediment samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) of 1450 ug/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220432012Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7675 and 7622 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino301742012Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | Terbufos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, and Terbufos consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294762010State Reviewed Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | TerbufosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved2 Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino301742012Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | Terbufos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, and Terbufos consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295322010State Reviewed Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | BiphenylWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal2 Two sediment samples were collected and analyzed in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219802012Benzo[b]fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. This line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. This sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76612010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10Two samples were taken at 1 location in the interior of the lake. One water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water quality sample was collected in 10/2002 at 1 location. This sample did not exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene, and 11 ug/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino290522012Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, and Benzo(k)Fluoranthene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295362010State Reviewed Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluorantheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal2 Two sediment samples were collected and analyzed in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219822012Benzo[k]fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. This line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. This sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of one water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76612010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10Two samples were taken at 1 location in the interior of the lake. One water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water quality sample was collected in 10/2002 at 1 location. This sample did not exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene, and 11 ug/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214802012Beryllium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 34 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51582010State Reviewed BerylliumMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal340Forty-nine water samples were taken at 6 locations on the lake. Fifteen water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 34 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 5/15/1996 through 1/28/2004. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 0.004 mg/l for the protection of human health (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100101, 100100),and midlake (100102, 100099).Forty-nine discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 5/15/1996 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 8 discrete dates in 1996, 2 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/15/1996 through 1/28/2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino290382012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29801 and 29530 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, fish tissue evaluation guideline for Mirex is avaialble in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One fish tissue sample for Mirex was collected but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Since no data available, staff can't determine if the water quality objectives are met.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464122012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671679MirexCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Mirex. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in fish tissue is 0.28 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens.Data for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino290382012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29801 and 29530 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, fish tissue evaluation guideline for Mirex is avaialble in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One fish tissue sample for Mirex was collected but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Since no data available, staff can't determine if the water quality objectives are met.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   295302010State Reviewed Dacthal | Mirex | OxadiazonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal2 Two sediment samples were collected and analyzed in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Dacthal, Mirex, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino290382012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29801 and 29530 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, fish tissue evaluation guideline for Mirex is avaialble in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One fish tissue sample for Mirex was collected but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Since no data available, staff can't determine if the water quality objectives are met.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   298012010State Reviewed Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | OxadiazonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved2 Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino218172012Bromoform Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Both lines of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76482010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10Two samples were taken at 1 location in the interior of the lake. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water quality sample was collected in 10/2002 at 1 location. This sample did not exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino218172012Bromoform Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Both lines of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270432010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10Two samples were taken at 1 location in the interior of the lake. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water quality sample was collected in 10/2002 at 1 location. This sample did not exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214692012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7692 and 7699 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. LOEs 7675 and 5160 were combined. LOEs 7630 and 5144 were also combined to determine the use rating. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 36 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 2 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51442010State Reviewed Cadmium | NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal340Sixty-nine water samples were taken at 6 locations on the lake for Cadmium. Thirty-five water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. Thirty-four water quality samples from 5 locations for Nickel were all acceptable. The 34 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004 for Cadmium, and 3/18/1997 through 1/28/2004 for Nickel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: The Hardness Dependent Concentrations of Cadmium and Nickel (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100100, 100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-nine discrete samples were collected for Mercury and Cadmium, 34 for Nickel. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004 for Mercury and Cadmium, 3/18/1997 through 1/28/2004 for Nickel. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004 for Cadmium and Mercury. Samples were collected on 2 discrete dates in 1997, 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004 for Nickel. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214692012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7692 and 7699 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. LOEs 7675 and 5160 were combined. LOEs 7630 and 5144 were also combined to determine the use rating. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 36 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 2 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76992010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal20Two sediment samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples , none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214692012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7692 and 7699 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. LOEs 7675 and 5160 were combined. LOEs 7630 and 5144 were also combined to determine the use rating. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 36 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 2 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76922010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | SilverMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the following limits: 10 ug/l Cadmium, 50 ug/l Lead, 4 ug/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 100 ug/l Methoxychlor, and 50 ug/l Silver (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214692012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7692 and 7699 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. LOEs 7675 and 5160 were combined. LOEs 7630 and 5144 were also combined to determine the use rating. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 36 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 2 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214692012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7692 and 7699 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. LOEs 7675 and 5160 were combined. LOEs 7630 and 5144 were also combined to determine the use rating. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 36 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 2 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76302010State Reviewed CadmiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependant Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214692012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7692 and 7699 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. LOEs 7675 and 5160 were combined. LOEs 7630 and 5144 were also combined to determine the use rating. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 36 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 2 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51602010State Reviewed Antimony | Cadmium | Mercury | NickelMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal340Sixty-nine water samples taken at 6 locations on the lake for Cadmium and Mercury. Thirty-five water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. Thirty-four water quality samples from 5 locations for Nickel and Antimony were all acceptable. The 34 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004 for Mercury and Cadmium, and 3/18/1997 through 1/28/2004 for Nickel and Antimony. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.006 mg/l Antimony, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.002 mg/l Mercury, and 0.1 mg/l Nickel (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-nine discrete samples were collected for Mercury and Cadmium, 34 for Nickel and Antimony. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004 for Mercury and Cadmium, 3/18/1997 through 1/28/2004 for Nickel and Antimony. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004 for Cadmium and Mercury. Samples were collected on 2 discrete dates in 1997, 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004 for Nickel and Antimony. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino301932012Carbon (organic) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess organic Carbon consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fraction of organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fraction of organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295432010State Reviewed Carbon (organic)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal3 Three sediment samples were collected and analyzed in 2002 from 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Three sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220042012Carbon tetrachloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three lines of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 1 water sample exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76482010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10Two samples were taken at 1 location in the interior of the lake. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water quality sample was collected in 10/2002 at 1 location. This sample did not exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220042012Carbon tetrachloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three lines of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 1 water sample exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270432010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10Two samples were taken at 1 location in the interior of the lake. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water quality sample was collected in 10/2002 at 1 location. This sample did not exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220042012Carbon tetrachloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three lines of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 1 water sample exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76682010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | Benzene | Carbon tetrachlorideMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10Two samples were taken at 1 location in the interior of the lake. One water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water quality sample was collected in 10/2002 at 1 location. This sample did not exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.001 mg/l Benzene, 0.0005 mg/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.0005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, and 0.001 mg/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino291872012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, Tokuthion consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion or the sediment fractions of Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, Tokuthion or the sediment fractions of Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294702010State Reviewed Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | TokuthionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved2 Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino291872012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, Tokuthion consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion or the sediment fractions of Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, Tokuthion or the sediment fractions of Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295262010State Reviewed Methyl Parathion | ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal2 Two sediment samples were collected and analyzed in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino212442012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of 2 fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461622012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671655ChlordaneCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino212442012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of 2 fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461612012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671654ChlordaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino212442012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of 2 fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54472010State Reviewed ChlordaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal10One fish fillet sample was taken at 1 location in the lake. The sample was generally collected in 10/1987. This sample did not exceed the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 5.6 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the interior of Lake Havasu.One bluegill fillet composite sample was collected on 10/20/87. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino212442012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of 2 fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55742010State Reviewed ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal10One fish fillet sample was taken at 1 location in the lake. The sample was generally collected in 10/1987. This sample did not exceed the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the interior of Lake Havasu.One bluegill fillet composite sample was collected on 10/20/87. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino212442012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of 2 fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76332010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino212442012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of 2 fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino212442012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of 2 fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461282012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671656ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino292042012Chlorfenvinphos | Chlorpyrifos, methyl | Cuomaphos | Dicrotophos | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | Fenchlorphos | Leptophos | Merphos | Mevinphos | Tetrachlorvinphos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, and Chlorpyrifos Methyl consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294732010State Reviewed Chlorfenvinphos | Chlorpyrifos, methyl | Cuomaphos | Dicrotophos | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | Fenchlorphos | Leptophos | Merphos | Mevinphos | TetrachlorvinphosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved2 Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214842012Chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 71 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76782010State Reviewed Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214842012Chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 71 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51672010State Reviewed Chloride | SulfatesMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-NuisanceWaterTotal690Sixty-nine water quality samples were taken at 6 locations on the lake, generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 500 mg/l Chloride, and 500 mg/l Sulfate (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100101, 100100),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-nine discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219312012Chlorobenzene (mono) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nso. 7675, 7651, and 27038 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these water. None of 2 water sample exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76512010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219312012Chlorobenzene (mono) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nso. 7675, 7651, and 27038 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these water. None of 2 water sample exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219312012Chlorobenzene (mono) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nso. 7675, 7651, and 27038 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these water. None of 2 water sample exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270382010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino210772012Chlorpyrifos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. This line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. This sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   54482010State Reviewed ChlorpyrifosCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal10One fish fillet sample was taken at 1 location in the lake. The sample was generally collected in 10/1987. This sample did not exceed the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 10000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the interior of Lake Havasu.One bluegill fillet composite sample was collected on 10/20/87. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino213412012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL. None of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76992010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal20Two sediment samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples , none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino213412012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL. None of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76332010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino213412012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL. None of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino213412012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL. None of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51422010State Reviewed Chromium (total)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal350Sixty-nine water samples were taken at 6 locations on the lake. Thirty-four water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 35 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1724 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100100, 100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-nine discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino213412012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the drinking water MCL. None of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51592010State Reviewed Chromium (total) | SeleniumMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal350Sixty-nine water samples were taken at 6 locations on the lake. Thirty-four water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 35 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.050 mg/l Chromium, and 0.050 mg/l Selenium (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-nine discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino217712012Chrysene (C1-C4) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76992010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal20Two sediment samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples , none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino218472012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 44 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 44 water samples exceeded either the drinking water MCL, or the secondary MCL. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76782010State Reviewed Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino218472012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 44 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 44 water samples exceeded either the drinking water MCL, or the secondary MCL. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76842010State Reviewed Arsenic | CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected biannually in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples , none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effect Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effect Criteria for the protection of aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 0.25 mg/l Arsenic, and 15 mg/l Copper (USFWS, 1998).1.Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino218472012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 44 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 44 water samples exceeded either the drinking water MCL, or the secondary MCL. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76512010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino218472012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 44 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 44 water samples exceeded either the drinking water MCL, or the secondary MCL. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76172010State Reviewed CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples , none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino218472012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 44 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 44 water samples exceeded either the drinking water MCL, or the secondary MCL. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51722010State Reviewed CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal420Sixty-nine water samples were taken at 6 locations on the lake. Twenty-seven water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 42 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effects criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Bilogical Effects Criteria of 15 mg/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (USDOI, 1998).1.Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100100, 100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-nine discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ. 2.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino218472012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 44 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 44 water samples exceeded either the drinking water MCL, or the secondary MCL. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51682010State Reviewed CopperMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-NuisanceWaterTotal420Sixty-nine water samples were taken at 6 locations on the lake. Twenty-seven water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 42 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/2/1995 through 1/8/2004 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 1 mg/l for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100100, 100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-nine discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004.Water samples were generally collected and analyzed from 3/2/1995 through 1/28/2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino218472012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 44 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 44 water samples exceeded either the drinking water MCL, or the secondary MCL. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51392010State Reviewed CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal420Sixty-nine water samples were taken at 6 locations on the lake. Twenty-seven water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 42 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100100, 100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-nine discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino218472012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 44 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 44 water samples exceeded either the drinking water MCL, or the secondary MCL. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76992010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal20Two sediment samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples , none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino218472012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 44 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 44 water samples exceeded either the drinking water MCL, or the secondary MCL. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51452010State Reviewed CopperMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal420Sixty-nine water samples were taken at 6 locations on the lake. Twenty-seven water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 42 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004 at 6 locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion of 1300 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100100, 100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-nine discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004.Water samples were generally collected and analyzed from 3/2/1995 through 1/28/2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino210782012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT, none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline for either DDT or total DDT. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54492010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal10One fish fillet sample was taken at 1 location in the lake. The sample was generally collected in 10/1987. This sample did not exceed the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 21 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the interior of Lake Havasu.One bluegill fillet composite sample was collected on 10/20/87. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino210782012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT, none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline for either DDT or total DDT. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55822010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal10One fish fillet sample was taken at 1 location in the lake. The sample was generally collected in 10/1987. This sample did not exceed the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 1000 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the interior of Lake Havasu.One bluegill fillet composite sample was collected on 10/20/87. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino210782012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT, none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline for either DDT or total DDT. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76422010State Reviewed DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) for pp'-DDT of 1.1 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino210782012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT, none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline for either DDT or total DDT. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461292012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671657Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino210782012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT, none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline for either DDT or total DDT. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461342012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671658Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Cold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino210782012DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria for DDT, none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline for either DDT or total DDT. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461352012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671659Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino221472012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7620 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 5450 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game criteria. None of 1 fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76202010State Reviewed DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDFG Hazardous Assessment Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.16 ug/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and GameSamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino221472012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7620 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 5450 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game criteria. None of 1 fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   54502010State Reviewed DiazinonCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal10One fish fillet sample was taken at 1 location in the lake. The sample was generally collected in 10/1987. This sample did not exceed the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 300 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the interior of Lake Havasu.One bluegill fillet composite sample was collected on 10/20/87. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220112012Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. This line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. This sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76612010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10Two samples were taken at 1 location in the interior of the lake. One water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water quality sample was collected in 10/2002 at 1 location. This sample did not exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: Benzene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene, and 11 ug/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino290402012Dibenzothiophene | o-Xylene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Dibenzothiophene, and o-Xylene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene or the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene or the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295342010State Reviewed DibenzothiopheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal2 Two sediment samples were collected and analyzed in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino290402012Dibenzothiophene | o-Xylene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Dibenzothiophene, and o-Xylene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene or the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene or the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294822010State Reviewed Dibenzothiophene | o-XyleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved1 One water sample was collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.One water sample was collected. The water sample was collected in 2002, in October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino290642012Dichlorobenzophenone | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene, and pp-DCBPconsistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene, or pp-DCBP for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene, or pp-DCBP for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295422010State Reviewed Dichlorobenzophenone | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal2 Two sediment samples were collected and analyzed in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene, or pp'-Dichlorobenzophenone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219782012Dichlorobromomethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Both lines of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, or the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270432010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10Two samples were taken at 1 location in the interior of the lake. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water quality sample was collected in 10/2002 at 1 location. This sample did not exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219782012Dichlorobromomethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Both lines of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, or the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76682010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | Benzene | Carbon tetrachlorideMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10Two samples were taken at 1 location in the interior of the lake. One water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water quality sample was collected in 10/2002 at 1 location. This sample did not exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.001 mg/l Benzene, 0.0005 mg/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.0005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, and 0.001 mg/l 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219942012Dichloromethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Both lines of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. This sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270442010State Reviewed Dichloromethane | Methyl bromideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10One water sample was collected in 5/2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. This sample did not exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 48 ug/l Methyl Bromide, and 5 ug/l Dichloromethane (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  A sample was collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.One water samples was collected. A water sample was collected in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219942012Dichloromethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Both lines of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. This sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76452010State Reviewed Dichloromethane | Methyl bromideMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10One water sample was collected in 5/2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. This sample did not exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 48 ug/l Methyl Bromide, and 5 ug/l Dichloromethane (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  A sample was collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.One water samples was collected. A water sample was collected in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214442012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461412012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671660DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214442012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76992010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal20Two sediment samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples , none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214442012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76332010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214442012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461482012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671662DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214442012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461422012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671661DieldrinCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214442012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55922010State Reviewed DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal10One fish fillet sample was taken at 1 location in the lake. The sample was generally collected in 10/1987. This sample did not exceed the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the interior of Lake Havasu.One bluegill fillet composite sample was collected on 10/20/87. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214452012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Both lines of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. Neither of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 fish tissue sample exceeded either the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment or the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guidelines and these do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   54512010State Reviewed EndosulfanCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal10One fish fillet sample was taken at 1 location in the lake. The sample was generally collected in 10/1987. This sample did not exceed the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 20,000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the interior of Lake Havasu.One bluegill fillet composite sample was collected on 10/20/87. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214452012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Both lines of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. Neither of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 fish tissue sample exceeded either the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment or the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guidelines and these do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   56012010State Reviewed EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal10One fish fillet sample was taken at 1 location in the lake. The sample was generally collected in 10/1987. This sample did not exceed the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the interior of Lake Havasu.One bluegill fillet composite sample was collected on 10/20/87. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino216742012Endosulfan sulfate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7651 and 27038 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76512010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino216742012Endosulfan sulfate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7651 and 27038 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270382010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino290532012Endosulfan | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, and Endosulfan Sulfate consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295372010State Reviewed Endosulfan | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal2 Two sediment samples were collected and analyzed in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino224402012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56082010State Reviewed EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal10One fish fillet sample was taken at 1 location in the lake. The sample was generally collected in 10/1987. This sample did not exceed the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the interior of Lake Havasu.One bluegill fillet composite sample was collected on 10/20/87. Field procedures described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. Used CDFG's Laboratory Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino224402012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76332010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino224402012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76512010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino224402012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino224402012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76992010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal20Two sediment samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples , none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino224402012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461572012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671666EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino224402012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461582012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671667EndrinCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino224402012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671668EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino224402012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54522010State Reviewed EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal10One fish fillet sample was taken at 1 location in the lake. The sample was generally collected in 10/1987. This sample did not exceed the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 1000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the interior of Lake Havasu.One bluegill fillet composite sample was collected on 10/20/87. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino224402012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   270382010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino216832012Endrin aldehyde Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7651 and 27038 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270382010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino216832012Endrin aldehyde Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7651 and 27038 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76512010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino215132012Enterococcus Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7611 and 7608 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Enterococcus water quality objectives for RECI or RECII beneficial uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76082010State Reviewed EnterococcusWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples , none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In the Colorado River the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 61 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino215132012Enterococcus Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7611 and 7608 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan Enterococcus water quality objectives for RECI or RECII beneficial uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76112010State Reviewed EnterococcusNon-Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples , none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In the Colorado River the maximum allowable Enterococcus density is 305 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214462012Escherichia coli (E. coli) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 5178,5177,7703, and 7697 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan E. coli water quality objectives for RECI or RECII beneficial uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76972010State Reviewed Escherichia coli (E. coli)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples , none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In the Colorado River the maximum allowable E. coli density is 235 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214462012Escherichia coli (E. coli) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 5178,5177,7703, and 7697 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan E. coli water quality objectives for RECI or RECII beneficial uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51782010State Reviewed Escherichia coli (E. coli)Non-Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNone50Six water samples were taken at 5 locations on the lake. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 5 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 9/01/1999 through 4/24/2003. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan:Â…for the Colorado River, the following maximum allowables shall apply:REC2 E. Coli 1175 per 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098), near the north end (100101),and midlake (100102, 100099, 100144).Six discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 9/01/1999 through 4/24/2003. Samples were collected on 2 discrete dates in 1999, 3 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, and 1 date in 2003. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214462012Escherichia coli (E. coli) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 5178,5177,7703, and 7697 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan E. coli water quality objectives for RECI or RECII beneficial uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51772010State Reviewed Escherichia coli (E. coli)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNone50Six water samples taken at 5 locations on the lake. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 5 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 9/01/1999 through 4/24/2003. Of these total samples , none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan:Â…for the Colorado River, the following maximum allowables shall apply:REC1 E. Coli 235 per 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098), near the north end (100101),and midlake (100102, 100099, 100144).Six discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 9/01/1999 through 4/24/2003. Samples were collected on 2 discrete dates in 1999, 3 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, and 1 date in 2003. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214462012Escherichia coli (E. coli) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 5178,5177,7703, and 7697 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 7 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan E. coli water quality objectives for RECI or RECII beneficial uses. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   77032010State Reviewed Escherichia coli (E. coli)Non-Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples , none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In the Colorado River the maximum allowable E. coli density is 1175 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211812012Ethion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. This line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. This sample exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   54752010State Reviewed EthionCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal10One fish fillet sample was taken at 1 location in the lake. The sample was generally collected in 10/1987. This sample did not exceed the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 2000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the interior of Lake Havasu.One bluegill fillet composite sample was collected on 10/20/87. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211822012Ethylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle.Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 6 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51492010State Reviewed EthylbenzeneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Twelve water samples were taken at 4 locations on the lake. Eight water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 4 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/2000 through 7/05/2001. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 3100 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098), near the north end (100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Twelve discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/2000 through 7/05/2001. Samples were collected on 3 discrete dates in 2000, and 5 dates in 2001. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211822012Ethylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle.Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 6 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270382010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211822012Ethylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle.Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 6 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211822012Ethylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle.Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 6 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76512010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211822012Ethylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle.Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 6 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51632010State Reviewed EthylbenzeneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Twelve water samples were taken at 4 locations on the lake, 8 water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 4 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/2000 through 7/5/2001. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 0.3 mg/l for the protection of human health (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098), near the north end (100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Twelve discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/2000 through 7/05/2001. Samples were collected on 3 discrete dates in 2000, and 5 dates in 2001. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211822012Ethylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle.Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 6 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270402010State Reviewed EthylbenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Twelve water samples were taken at 4 locations on the lake. Eight water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 4 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/2000 through 7/05/2001. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 3100 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098), near the north end (100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Twelve discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/2000 through 7/05/2001. Samples were collected on 3 discrete dates in 2000, and 5 dates in 2001. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino215882012Fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7699, 27038, and 7651 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76512010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino215882012Fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7699, 27038, and 7651 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270382010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino215882012Fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7699, 27038, and 7651 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76992010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal20Two sediment samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples , none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220322012Fluorene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 27038, 7651, and 7699 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270382010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220322012Fluorene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 27038, 7651, and 7699 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76992010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal20Two sediment samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples , none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220322012Fluorene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 27038, 7651, and 7699 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76512010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214272012Fluoride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 69 samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51572010State Reviewed Arsenic | Barium | FluorideMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal690Sixty-nine water quality samples were taken at 6 locations on the lake, generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.050 mg/l Arsenic, 1 mg/l Barium, and 2 mg/l Fluoride (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100101, 100100),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-nine discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino221372012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463862012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671673HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino221372012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463772012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671672HeptachlorCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino221372012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino221372012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76332010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino221372012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56182010State Reviewed HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal10One fish fillet sample was taken at 1 location in the lake. The sample was generally collected in 10/1987. This sample did not exceed the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the interior of Lake Havasu.One bluegill fillet composite sample was collected on 10/20/87. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211832012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76332010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211832012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211832012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463872012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671674Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in fish tissue is 0.93 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking WaterData for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211832012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463952012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671675Heptachlor epoxideCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211832012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463962012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671676Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211832012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56262010State Reviewed Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal10One fish fillet sample was taken at 1 location in the lake. The sample was generally collected in 10/1987. This sample did not exceed the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the interior of Lake Havasu.One bluegill fillet composite sample was collected on 10/20/87. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino290212012Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Heptachlor, and Heptachlor Epoxide consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295382010State Reviewed Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal2 Two sediment samples were collected and analyzed in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211842012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of two water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of two fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211842012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of two water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of two fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464042012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671677Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobenzene. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue is 2.8 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211842012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of two water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of two fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54532010State Reviewed Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal10One fish fillet sample was taken at 1 location in the lake. The sample was generally collected in 10/1987. This sample did not exceed the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 20 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the interior of Lake Havasu.One bluegill fillet composite sample was collected on 10/20/87. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino292092012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Methoxychlor | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, and Methoxychlor consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295402010State Reviewed Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Methoxychlor | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal2 Two sediment samples were collected and analyzed in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino226282012Hexachlorobutadiene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Both lines of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76482010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10Two samples were taken at 1 location in the interior of the lake. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water quality sample was collected in 10/2002 at 1 location. This sample did not exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino226282012Hexachlorobutadiene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Both lines of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270432010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10Two samples were taken at 1 location in the interior of the lake. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water quality sample was collected in 10/2002 at 1 location. This sample did not exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino222082012Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (mixture) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. This line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. This sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 fish tissue sample exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   67272010State Reviewed Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (mixture)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal10One fish fillet sample was taken at 1 location in the lake. The sample was generally collected in 10/1987. This sample did not exceed the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the interior of Lake Havasu.One bluegill fillet composite sample was collected on 10/20/87. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino290202012Hydroxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Hydroxide consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fraction of Hydroxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of Hydroxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294842010State Reviewed HydroxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved1 One water sample was collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for Hydroxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.One water sample was collected. The water sample was collected in 2002, in May. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino212432012Iron Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of 47 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51322010State Reviewed IronMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-NuisanceWaterTotal473Sixty-three water samples were taken at 5 locations on the lake. Sixteen water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 47 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/2/1995 through 1/8/2004. Of these total samples , 3 exceeded the CDPH SMCL. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 7/27/1995, 12/11/1996, and 3/18/1997, from three different locations (56227, 100098, and 100102) (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 0.3 mg/l for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-A 2.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100100, 100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-three discrete water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed from 3/2/1995 through 1/8/2004.Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 2 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, and 1 date in 2003. The exceedences were found in samples collected from 7/27/1995 through 3/18/1997. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods, similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using USEPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino212572012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria, or the Basin Plan water quality objective for MUN beneficial use. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76992010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal20Two sediment samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples , none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino212572012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria, or the Basin Plan water quality objective for MUN beneficial use. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51412010State Reviewed LeadWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal340Sixty-nine water samples were taken at 6 locations on the lake. Thirty-five water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 34 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100100, 100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-nine discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino212572012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria, or the Basin Plan water quality objective for MUN beneficial use. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51742010State Reviewed LeadMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal340Sixty-nine water samples were taken at 6 locations on the lake. Thirty-five water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 34 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the limits specified belowÂ…Lead 0.05 mg/l (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100100, 100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-nine discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino212572012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria, or the Basin Plan water quality objective for MUN beneficial use. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76362010State Reviewed Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR hardness dependent criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Lead,Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino212572012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria, or the Basin Plan water quality objective for MUN beneficial use. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76922010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | SilverMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the following limits: 10 ug/l Cadmium, 50 ug/l Lead, 4 ug/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 100 ug/l Methoxychlor, and 50 ug/l Silver (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220502012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       NNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54542010State Reviewed Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal10One fish fillet sample was taken at 1 location in the lake. The sample was generally collected in 10/1987. This sample did not exceed the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 30 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the interior of Lake Havasu.One bluegill fillet composite sample was collected on 10/20/87. Field procedures described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. Used CDFG's Laboratory Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220502012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       NNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   67352010State Reviewed Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal10One fish fillet sample was taken at 1 location in the lake. The sample was generally collected in 10/1987. This sample did not exceed the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the interior of Lake Havasu.One bluegill fillet composite sample was collected on 10/20/87. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220502012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       NNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220502012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       NNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76922010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | SilverMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the following limits: 10 ug/l Cadmium, 50 ug/l Lead, 4 ug/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 100 ug/l Methoxychlor, and 50 ug/l Silver (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220502012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       NNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76992010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal20Two sediment samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples , none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220502012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       NNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461642012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671669Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in fish tissue is 4.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220502012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       NNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463752012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671670Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Cold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220502012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       NNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463762012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671671Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino255412012Low Dissolved Oxygen Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 5137 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two measurements exceeded the water quality objective. When compared to the Basin Plan 8 mg/l threshold, there were 2 exceedances out of 18 acceptable measurements taken over all the sampling years. Insufficient spatial information was collected for two sampling locations to determine if the sampling locations were within the state boundaries. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient information for placing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 18 measurements exceeded the Basin Plan Objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51372010State Reviewed Oxygen, DissolvedCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved182Forty-nine measurements were taken at 3 locations on the lake, generally collected from 8/20/1992 through 3/14/2006. Thirty-one measurements could not be used in the assessment because insufficient spatial information was collected and it could not be determined if the sampling locations were within the state boundaries. The 18 acceptable measurements were collected from 5/1995 through 3/2006. Of these acceptable measurements, 2 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedances were found in measurements collected on 7/06/2000, and 1/28/2004, from one location (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: The dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below the following minimum levels at any time: For water designated for both WARM and COLD Beneficial Uses... 8.0 mg/l (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Measurements were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the north end (100100, 100101),and midlake (100099). Insufficient spatial information was collected for sampling locations 100100, and 100099 to determine if the sampling locations were within the state boundaries.Fortynine discrete measurements were collected. Measurements were generally collected from 8/20/1992 through 3/14/2006. Measurements were collected on 2 discrete dates in 1992, 1 date in 1993, 2 dates in 1994, 17 dates in 1995, 9 dates in 1996, 3 dates in 1997, 3 dates in 1998 , 2 dates in 2000, 4 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, 1 date in 2004, and 1 date in 2006. The exceedances were found in measurements collected from 7/06/2000 and 1/28/2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino210872012Manganese Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7678 and 5133 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51332010State Reviewed ManganeseMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-NuisanceWaterTotal140Thirrty-one water samples were taken at 3 locations on the lake. Seventeen water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 14 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 7/25/1995 through 1/27/2004. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 0.050 mg/l for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the north end (100100, 100101),and midlake (100099).Thirty-one discrete water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed from 3/3/1995 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 8 discrete dates in 1995, 5 dates in 1996, 2 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 2 dates in 2000, 6 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 2 dates in 2003, and 1 date in 2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods, similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using USEPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino210872012Manganese Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7678 and 5133 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76782010State Reviewed Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219492012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNYYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of evidence Nos. 5131 and 27035 recieved a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because of Poor Quality Assurance. In these lines of evidence greater than 90 percent of the sample results could not be used because of the data quantitation requirements of section 6.1.5. Both lines of evidence contain 2 out of four samples that exceed the water quality objectives. These exceedances may result in a listing. However, most of the sample results could not be used because of poor QA. Had the quality of the data been better, these exceedances would not have resulted in a listing decisions. This indicates that there is insufficient information to conclude that Mercury is an impairing these water. LOE Nos. 7639 and 26717, LOE Nos. 7676 and 5160 are combined for a use rating determination determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 35 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 36 water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 4 fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Two of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, because of the poor QA, there is insufficient information to conclude that Mercury is impairing these water. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76762010State Reviewed MercuryMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10One water sample was collected in 5/2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. This sample did not exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 0.002 mg/l for the protection of human health (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-AA sample was collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.One water sample was collected. A water sample was collected in 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219492012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNYYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of evidence Nos. 5131 and 27035 recieved a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because of Poor Quality Assurance. In these lines of evidence greater than 90 percent of the sample results could not be used because of the data quantitation requirements of section 6.1.5. Both lines of evidence contain 2 out of four samples that exceed the water quality objectives. These exceedances may result in a listing. However, most of the sample results could not be used because of poor QA. Had the quality of the data been better, these exceedances would not have resulted in a listing decisions. This indicates that there is insufficient information to conclude that Mercury is an impairing these water. LOE Nos. 7639 and 26717, LOE Nos. 7676 and 5160 are combined for a use rating determination determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 35 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 36 water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 4 fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Two of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, because of the poor QA, there is insufficient information to conclude that Mercury is impairing these water. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464052012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671678MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. Four composites (5 fish per composite) were generated from one species: common carp. These composites could not be used in the assessment due to total fish lengths for individual fish that do not fall within lengths noted in the guideline. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish (150 - 500 mm; fillet wet weight) is 0.20 mg/kg.1.Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001Data for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 4 locations. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected over the time period 9/5/2007-10/25/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219492012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNYYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of evidence Nos. 5131 and 27035 recieved a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because of Poor Quality Assurance. In these lines of evidence greater than 90 percent of the sample results could not be used because of the data quantitation requirements of section 6.1.5. Both lines of evidence contain 2 out of four samples that exceed the water quality objectives. These exceedances may result in a listing. However, most of the sample results could not be used because of poor QA. Had the quality of the data been better, these exceedances would not have resulted in a listing decisions. This indicates that there is insufficient information to conclude that Mercury is an impairing these water. LOE Nos. 7639 and 26717, LOE Nos. 7676 and 5160 are combined for a use rating determination determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 35 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 36 water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 4 fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Two of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, because of the poor QA, there is insufficient information to conclude that Mercury is impairing these water. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   311032010State Reviewed MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet40Fish were collected for tissue analysis at four locations from Lake Havasu. A total of 4 sample composites were generated from one species: Common Carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). A total of 0 out of 4 samples exceeded the OHHEA fish tissue screening value for human health.1.Data associated with report entitled: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 3.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 0.3 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from four locations in Lake Havasu. As discussed in the Lakes and Reservoirs Report (SWAMP, 2009), individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody with an approximate one-mile diameter, from which multiple fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody. Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008). Data collected from this waterbody was assigned under Station Name "Lake Havasu_BOG" in the SWAMP report.Samples were collected on 9/5/07 and 10/25/07There are no known environmental conditions (e.g., seasonality, land use practices, fire events, storms, etc.) that are related to these data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in "Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).1.Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219492012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNYYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of evidence Nos. 5131 and 27035 recieved a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because of Poor Quality Assurance. In these lines of evidence greater than 90 percent of the sample results could not be used because of the data quantitation requirements of section 6.1.5. Both lines of evidence contain 2 out of four samples that exceed the water quality objectives. These exceedances may result in a listing. However, most of the sample results could not be used because of poor QA. Had the quality of the data been better, these exceedances would not have resulted in a listing decisions. This indicates that there is insufficient information to conclude that Mercury is an impairing these water. LOE Nos. 7639 and 26717, LOE Nos. 7676 and 5160 are combined for a use rating determination determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 35 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 36 water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 4 fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Two of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, because of the poor QA, there is insufficient information to conclude that Mercury is impairing these water. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   270362010State Reviewed MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10One water sample was collected in 5/2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. This sample did not exceed the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.050 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  A sample was collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.One water sample was collected. A water sample was collected in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219492012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNYYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of evidence Nos. 5131 and 27035 recieved a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because of Poor Quality Assurance. In these lines of evidence greater than 90 percent of the sample results could not be used because of the data quantitation requirements of section 6.1.5. Both lines of evidence contain 2 out of four samples that exceed the water quality objectives. These exceedances may result in a listing. However, most of the sample results could not be used because of poor QA. Had the quality of the data been better, these exceedances would not have resulted in a listing decisions. This indicates that there is insufficient information to conclude that Mercury is an impairing these water. LOE Nos. 7639 and 26717, LOE Nos. 7676 and 5160 are combined for a use rating determination determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 35 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 36 water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 4 fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Two of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, because of the poor QA, there is insufficient information to conclude that Mercury is impairing these water. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   270352010State Reviewed MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal42Sixty-seven water samples were taken at 3 locations on the lake. Sixty-three water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The four acceptable water quality samples were collected on 2/07/2001, and 11/28/2001 at 3 locations in the lake. Of these total samples, 2 exceeded the CTR Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 11/28/2001 from the two midlake locations 100102 and 100099) (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.050 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098), and midlake (100102 and 100099).Sixty-seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed from 3/2/1995 through 1/8/2004.Samples were collected on 10 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 2 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, and 2 dates each in 2002, 2003, and 2004. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 11/28/2001. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods, similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using USEPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219492012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNYYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of evidence Nos. 5131 and 27035 recieved a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because of Poor Quality Assurance. In these lines of evidence greater than 90 percent of the sample results could not be used because of the data quantitation requirements of section 6.1.5. Both lines of evidence contain 2 out of four samples that exceed the water quality objectives. These exceedances may result in a listing. However, most of the sample results could not be used because of poor QA. Had the quality of the data been better, these exceedances would not have resulted in a listing decisions. This indicates that there is insufficient information to conclude that Mercury is an impairing these water. LOE Nos. 7639 and 26717, LOE Nos. 7676 and 5160 are combined for a use rating determination determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 35 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 36 water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 4 fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Two of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, because of the poor QA, there is insufficient information to conclude that Mercury is impairing these water. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   267172010State Reviewed MercuryWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal340Sixty-nine water samples were taken at 6 locations on the lake. Thirty-five water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 34 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NRWQC criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataNational Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.4 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2002).1.National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA  Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100100, 100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-nine discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219492012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNYYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of evidence Nos. 5131 and 27035 recieved a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because of Poor Quality Assurance. In these lines of evidence greater than 90 percent of the sample results could not be used because of the data quantitation requirements of section 6.1.5. Both lines of evidence contain 2 out of four samples that exceed the water quality objectives. These exceedances may result in a listing. However, most of the sample results could not be used because of poor QA. Had the quality of the data been better, these exceedances would not have resulted in a listing decisions. This indicates that there is insufficient information to conclude that Mercury is an impairing these water. LOE Nos. 7639 and 26717, LOE Nos. 7676 and 5160 are combined for a use rating determination determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 35 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 36 water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 4 fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Two of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, because of the poor QA, there is insufficient information to conclude that Mercury is impairing these water. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76992010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal20Two sediment samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples , none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219492012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNYYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of evidence Nos. 5131 and 27035 recieved a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because of Poor Quality Assurance. In these lines of evidence greater than 90 percent of the sample results could not be used because of the data quantitation requirements of section 6.1.5. Both lines of evidence contain 2 out of four samples that exceed the water quality objectives. These exceedances may result in a listing. However, most of the sample results could not be used because of poor QA. Had the quality of the data been better, these exceedances would not have resulted in a listing decisions. This indicates that there is insufficient information to conclude that Mercury is an impairing these water. LOE Nos. 7639 and 26717, LOE Nos. 7676 and 5160 are combined for a use rating determination determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 35 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 36 water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 4 fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Two of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, because of the poor QA, there is insufficient information to conclude that Mercury is impairing these water. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76532010State Reviewed MercuryMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10One water sample was collected in 5/2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. This sample did not exceed the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.050 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  A sample was collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.One water sample was collected. A water sample was collected in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219492012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNYYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of evidence Nos. 5131 and 27035 recieved a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because of Poor Quality Assurance. In these lines of evidence greater than 90 percent of the sample results could not be used because of the data quantitation requirements of section 6.1.5. Both lines of evidence contain 2 out of four samples that exceed the water quality objectives. These exceedances may result in a listing. However, most of the sample results could not be used because of poor QA. Had the quality of the data been better, these exceedances would not have resulted in a listing decisions. This indicates that there is insufficient information to conclude that Mercury is an impairing these water. LOE Nos. 7639 and 26717, LOE Nos. 7676 and 5160 are combined for a use rating determination determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 35 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 36 water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 4 fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Two of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, because of the poor QA, there is insufficient information to conclude that Mercury is impairing these water. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76392010State Reviewed MercuryWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NRWQC criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.4 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2002).1.National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219492012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNYYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of evidence Nos. 5131 and 27035 recieved a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because of Poor Quality Assurance. In these lines of evidence greater than 90 percent of the sample results could not be used because of the data quantitation requirements of section 6.1.5. Both lines of evidence contain 2 out of four samples that exceed the water quality objectives. These exceedances may result in a listing. However, most of the sample results could not be used because of poor QA. Had the quality of the data been better, these exceedances would not have resulted in a listing decisions. This indicates that there is insufficient information to conclude that Mercury is an impairing these water. LOE Nos. 7639 and 26717, LOE Nos. 7676 and 5160 are combined for a use rating determination determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 35 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 36 water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 4 fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Two of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, because of the poor QA, there is insufficient information to conclude that Mercury is impairing these water. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55472010State Reviewed MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal10One fish tissue sample was collected at one location in the interior of the lake. The fish tissue sample was collected on 10/28/1987. This sample did not exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 0.3 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the interior of Lake Havasu.One fish tissue sample was collected. One bluegill fillet composite sample was collected on 10/28/1987. Field procedures described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. Used CDFG's Laboratory Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219492012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNYYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of evidence Nos. 5131 and 27035 recieved a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because of Poor Quality Assurance. In these lines of evidence greater than 90 percent of the sample results could not be used because of the data quantitation requirements of section 6.1.5. Both lines of evidence contain 2 out of four samples that exceed the water quality objectives. These exceedances may result in a listing. However, most of the sample results could not be used because of poor QA. Had the quality of the data been better, these exceedances would not have resulted in a listing decisions. This indicates that there is insufficient information to conclude that Mercury is an impairing these water. LOE Nos. 7639 and 26717, LOE Nos. 7676 and 5160 are combined for a use rating determination determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 35 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 36 water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 4 fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Two of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, because of the poor QA, there is insufficient information to conclude that Mercury is impairing these water. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51312010State Reviewed MercuryMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal42Sixty-seven water samples were taken at 3 locations on the lake. Sixty-three water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The four acceptable water quality samples were collected on 2/07/2001, and 11/28/2001 at 3 locations in the lake. Of these total samples, 2 exceeded the CTR Criteria. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 11/28/2001 from the two midlake locations 100102 and 100099) (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.050 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098), and midlake (100102 and 100099).Sixty-seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed from 3/2/1995 through 1/8/2004.Samples were collected on 10 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 2 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, and 2 dates each in 2002, 2003, and 2004. The exceedences were found in samples collected on 11/28/2001. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods, similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using USEPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219492012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNYYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of evidence Nos. 5131 and 27035 recieved a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because of Poor Quality Assurance. In these lines of evidence greater than 90 percent of the sample results could not be used because of the data quantitation requirements of section 6.1.5. Both lines of evidence contain 2 out of four samples that exceed the water quality objectives. These exceedances may result in a listing. However, most of the sample results could not be used because of poor QA. Had the quality of the data been better, these exceedances would not have resulted in a listing decisions. This indicates that there is insufficient information to conclude that Mercury is an impairing these water. LOE Nos. 7639 and 26717, LOE Nos. 7676 and 5160 are combined for a use rating determination determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 35 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 36 water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 4 fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Two of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, because of the poor QA, there is insufficient information to conclude that Mercury is impairing these water. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51602010State Reviewed Antimony | Cadmium | Mercury | NickelMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal340Sixty-nine water samples taken at 6 locations on the lake for Cadmium and Mercury. Thirty-five water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. Thirty-four water quality samples from 5 locations for Nickel and Antimony were all acceptable. The 34 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004 for Mercury and Cadmium, and 3/18/1997 through 1/28/2004 for Nickel and Antimony. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.006 mg/l Antimony, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.002 mg/l Mercury, and 0.1 mg/l Nickel (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-nine discrete samples were collected for Mercury and Cadmium, 34 for Nickel and Antimony. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004 for Mercury and Cadmium, 3/18/1997 through 1/28/2004 for Nickel and Antimony. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004 for Cadmium and Mercury. Samples were collected on 2 discrete dates in 1997, 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004 for Nickel and Antimony. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219562012Methoxychlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7675, 7692, and 7627 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective. None of 2 water samples exceeded the USEPA drinking water criteria and drinking water MCL. These do not exceed Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76272010State Reviewed MethoxychlorMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USEPA criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006USEPA Drinking Water Criteria of 40 ug/l for the protection of drinking water uses (USEPA, 2002).1.National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219562012Methoxychlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7675, 7692, and 7627 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective. None of 2 water samples exceeded the USEPA drinking water criteria and drinking water MCL. These do not exceed Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219562012Methoxychlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7675, 7692, and 7627 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective. None of 2 water samples exceeded the USEPA drinking water criteria and drinking water MCL. These do not exceed Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76922010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | SilverMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the following limits: 10 ug/l Cadmium, 50 ug/l Lead, 4 ug/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 100 ug/l Methoxychlor, and 50 ug/l Silver (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214792012Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 9 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL or secondary MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51702010State Reviewed Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-NuisanceWaterTotal70Twelve water samples were taken at 4 locations on the lake. Five water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 7 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/2000 through 7/5/2001. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 0.005 mg/l for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098), near the north end (100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Twelve discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/2000 through 7/05/2001. Samples were collected on 3 discrete dates in 2000, and 5 dates in 2001. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214792012Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 9 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL or secondary MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51622010State Reviewed Benzene | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal70Twelve water samples were taken at 4 locations on the lake. Five water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 7 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/2000 through 7/5/2001. Of these total samples , none exceeded the CDPH MCL criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.001 mg/l Benzene, 0.013 mg/l Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098), near the north end (100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Twelve discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/2000 through 7/05/2001. Samples were collected on 3 discrete dates in 2000, and 5 dates in 2001. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214792012Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 9 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL or secondary MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76782010State Reviewed Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214792012Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 9 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL or secondary MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220032012Methyl bromide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The lines of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. This sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76452010State Reviewed Dichloromethane | Methyl bromideMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10One water sample was collected in 5/2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. This sample did not exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 48 ug/l Methyl Bromide, and 5 ug/l Dichloromethane (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  A sample was collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.One water samples was collected. A water sample was collected in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220032012Methyl bromide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The lines of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. This sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270442010State Reviewed Dichloromethane | Methyl bromideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10One water sample was collected in 5/2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. This sample did not exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 48 ug/l Methyl Bromide, and 5 ug/l Dichloromethane (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  A sample was collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.One water samples was collected. A water sample was collected in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219692012Molinate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7675 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino217722012Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76992010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal20Two sediment samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples , none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino213332012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life uses, or human health when consuming organisms and water from this water. None of 36 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51462010State Reviewed Antimony | NickelMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal340Thirty-four water quality samples were taken at 5 locations on the lake, generally collected from 3/18/1997 through 1/28/2004. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 14 ug/l Antimony, and 610 ug/l Nickel (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Thirty-four discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/18/1997 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 2 discrete dates in 1997, 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino213332012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life uses, or human health when consuming organisms and water from this water. None of 36 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51602010State Reviewed Antimony | Cadmium | Mercury | NickelMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal340Sixty-nine water samples taken at 6 locations on the lake for Cadmium and Mercury. Thirty-five water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. Thirty-four water quality samples from 5 locations for Nickel and Antimony were all acceptable. The 34 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004 for Mercury and Cadmium, and 3/18/1997 through 1/28/2004 for Nickel and Antimony. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.006 mg/l Antimony, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.002 mg/l Mercury, and 0.1 mg/l Nickel (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-nine discrete samples were collected for Mercury and Cadmium, 34 for Nickel and Antimony. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004 for Mercury and Cadmium, 3/18/1997 through 1/28/2004 for Nickel and Antimony. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004 for Cadmium and Mercury. Samples were collected on 2 discrete dates in 1997, 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004 for Nickel and Antimony. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino213332012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life uses, or human health when consuming organisms and water from this water. None of 36 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76362010State Reviewed Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR hardness dependent criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Lead,Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino213332012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life uses, or human health when consuming organisms and water from this water. None of 36 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76512010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino213332012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life uses, or human health when consuming organisms and water from this water. None of 36 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51442010State Reviewed Cadmium | NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal340Sixty-nine water samples were taken at 6 locations on the lake for Cadmium. Thirty-five water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. Thirty-four water quality samples from 5 locations for Nickel were all acceptable. The 34 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004 for Cadmium, and 3/18/1997 through 1/28/2004 for Nickel. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: The Hardness Dependent Concentrations of Cadmium and Nickel (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100100, 100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-nine discrete samples were collected for Mercury and Cadmium, 34 for Nickel. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004 for Mercury and Cadmium, 3/18/1997 through 1/28/2004 for Nickel. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004 for Cadmium and Mercury. Samples were collected on 2 discrete dates in 1997, 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004 for Nickel. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino213332012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life uses, or human health when consuming organisms and water from this water. None of 36 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino213332012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life uses, or human health when consuming organisms and water from this water. None of 36 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270382010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino213332012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life uses, or human health when consuming organisms and water from this water. None of 36 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270372010State Reviewed Antimony | NickelCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal340Thirty-four water quality samples were taken at 5 locations on the lake, generally collected from 3/18/1997 through 1/28/2004. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 14 ug/l Antimony, and 610 ug/l Nickel (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Thirty-four discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/18/1997 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 2 discrete dates in 1997, 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino213332012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life uses, or human health when consuming organisms and water from this water. None of 36 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76992010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal20Two sediment samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples , none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219302012Nitrate as Nitrate (NO3) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7675 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino210892012Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 70 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51562010State Reviewed Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal700Seventy water quality samples were taken at 6 locations on the lake, generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 10 mg/l for the protection of human health (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100101, 100100),and midlake (100102, 100099).Seventy discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 9 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998, 2 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219972012Nitrogen, Nitrite Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7675 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino291882012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, and Trichlorfon consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon or the sediment fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, or Tedion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon or the sediment fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, or Tedion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295312010State Reviewed Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | TedionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal2 Two sediment samples were collected and analyzed in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, or Tedion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino291882012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, and Trichlorfon consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon or the sediment fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, or Tedion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon or the sediment fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, or Tedion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294752010State Reviewed Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | TrichloronateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved2 Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino222122012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino222122012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464212012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671682PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total PCB concentration of 500 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino222122012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464202012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671681PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Cold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total PCB concentration of 500 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino222122012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464132012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671680PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for polychlorinated biphenyls in fish tissue is 2.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino222122012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76992010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal20Two sediment samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples , none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino222122012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the California drinking water MCL, none of two fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and none of two sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56382010State Reviewed PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal10One fish fillet sample was taken at 1 location in the lake. The sample was generally collected in 10/1987. This sample did not exceed the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 500 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the interior of Lake Havasu.One bluegill fillet composite sample was collected on 10/20/87. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino200102012Perchlorate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings of LOE Nos. 755, 7614 and 5165 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. No measurements of perchlorate exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The sediment quality guideline used complies with the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 3. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.4. A remedial effort has been underway since October 2002 to remove perchlorate from a source near Las Vegas, NV. Monitoring data collected before October 2002 are no longer representative of water quality in the River. 4. After September 2002, none of 31 water samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76142010State Reviewed PerchlorateMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterNone20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples , none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 0.006 mg/l for the protection of human health (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino200102012Perchlorate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings of LOE Nos. 755, 7614 and 5165 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. No measurements of perchlorate exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The sediment quality guideline used complies with the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 3. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.4. A remedial effort has been underway since October 2002 to remove perchlorate from a source near Las Vegas, NV. Monitoring data collected before October 2002 are no longer representative of water quality in the River. 4. After September 2002, none of 31 water samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51652010State Reviewed PerchlorateMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal30Three water quality sample were taken at 3 locations on the lake, on 9/30/2003. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 0.006 mg/l for the protection of human health (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the north end (Station ID No. 100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Three discrete samples were collected. The sample were all collected on 9/30/2003. Sample were collected on 1 discrete date in 2003. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino200102012Perchlorate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings of LOE Nos. 755, 7614 and 5165 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. No measurements of perchlorate exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The sediment quality guideline used complies with the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 3. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.4. A remedial effort has been underway since October 2002 to remove perchlorate from a source near Las Vegas, NV. Monitoring data collected before October 2002 are no longer representative of water quality in the River. 4. After September 2002, none of 31 water samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   7562006State Reviewed PerchlorateMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterNone260Monthly samples were collected by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of S. CA at the Colorado River Aqueduct at Lake Havasu (MWD of Southern California, 2001). Twelve-month averages of the perchlorate concentrations were calculated and compared to the benchmark value of 6 ppb. Of the annual averages from 1998 to 2003 (6 averages), 4 were greater than 6 ppb. The averages in 2002 and 2003 were less than 6 ppb. Of the 76 single samples 21 were greater than 6 ppb. Note: Annual average concentration has declined from 6.4 ppb in 2000 to 4.8 ppb in 2003 (a 25% decrease) and further decreases are expected in 2004 and 2005 given the steady decline in the mass of perchlorate entering Lake Mead via Las Vegas Wash since early 2003.Before October 2002, only 3 samples had concentrations of perchlorate below 6 ppb. After September 2002, there have been no exceedances in 26 measurements.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)OEHHA PHG = 6 ppb.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Samples were collected at the intake to the Colorado River Aqueduct at Lake Havasu near Parker Dam.Samples were collected monthly from 1998 through 2004. Presently available data are from January 1998 to November 2004. MWD QA/QC. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino200102012Perchlorate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings of LOE Nos. 755, 7614 and 5165 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. No measurements of perchlorate exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The sediment quality guideline used complies with the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 3. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.4. A remedial effort has been underway since October 2002 to remove perchlorate from a source near Las Vegas, NV. Monitoring data collected before October 2002 are no longer representative of water quality in the River. 4. After September 2002, none of 31 water samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   7552006State Reviewed PerchlorateMunicipal & Domestic Supply Narrative Description DataNot SpecifiedNone  The source of perchlorate is a former perchlorate production site in Henderson, NV. At the site perchlorate enters a wash through groundwater and a surface seep. The perchlorate plume is intercepted at three locations and treated using ion exchange units and a biologically-based fluidized bed reactor. These treatment facilities are 99+ percent efficient at removing perchlorate.The treatment facilities have been operational since October 2002. Substantial reductions in the perchlorate concentrations entering Lake Mead have been realized.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not Specified    Henderson, NV.  QA Info Missing 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino217732012Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings of LOE No. 7699 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76992010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal20Two sediment samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples , none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino291992012Pheophytin a Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.7.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Pheophytin a consistent with Listing Policy section 3.7.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fraction of Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294852010State Reviewed Pheophytin aWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved1 One water sample was collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.One water sample was collected. The water sample was collected in 2002, in May. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino291892012Propazine | Terbuthylazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Propazine, and Terbuthylazine consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Propazine, or Terbuthylazine for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Propazine, or Terbuthylazine for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294792010State Reviewed Propazine | TerbuthylazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved2 Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Propazine, or Terbuthylazine for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220332012Pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings LOE are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76512010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220332012Pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings LOE are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270382010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220332012Pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings LOE are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76992010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal20Two sediment samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples , none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino212132012Salinity/TDS/Chlorides Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 102 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51662010State Reviewed Total Dissolved SolidsMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-NuisanceWaterTotal1020One hundred two water quality measurements were taken at 6 locations on the lake, generally collected from 7/26/1994 through 3/15/2006. Of these total measurements, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 1,000 mg/l for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsMeasurements were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100101, 100100),and midlake (100102, 100099, 100144).One hundred two discrete measurements were collected. Measurements were generally collected from 7/26/1994 through 3/15/2006. Measurements were collected on 3 discrete dates in 1994, , 16 dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998, 2 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, 2 dates in 2004, and 2 dates in 2006. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino213852012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7675 is combined with LOE No. 5159 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. There were a total of two sediment samples collected. However, no evaluation guideline for the fraction of selenium associated with sediment could be found that protects human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters and meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because of this, Line of Evidence No. 30276 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information in last assessment cycle.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 35 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objecitve. None of 37 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 2 fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54552010State Reviewed SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal10One fish fillet sample was taken at 1 location in the lake. The sample was generally collected in 10/1987. This sample did not exceed the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 7400 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the interior of Lake Havasu.One bluegill fillet composite sample was collected on 10/20/87. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino213852012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7675 is combined with LOE No. 5159 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. There were a total of two sediment samples collected. However, no evaluation guideline for the fraction of selenium associated with sediment could be found that protects human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters and meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because of this, Line of Evidence No. 30276 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information in last assessment cycle.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 35 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objecitve. None of 37 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 2 fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464292012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671683SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. Four composites (5 fish per composite) were generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenium in fish tissue is 7.4 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A background dietary consumption rate of 0.114 mg/day is applied for this micronutrient.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 4 locations. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected over the time period 9/5/2007-10/25/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino213852012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7675 is combined with LOE No. 5159 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. There were a total of two sediment samples collected. However, no evaluation guideline for the fraction of selenium associated with sediment could be found that protects human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters and meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because of this, Line of Evidence No. 30276 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information in last assessment cycle.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 35 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objecitve. None of 37 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 2 fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   302762010State Reviewed SeleniumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal2 Two sediment samples were collected and analyzed in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Selenium for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino213852012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7675 is combined with LOE No. 5159 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. There were a total of two sediment samples collected. However, no evaluation guideline for the fraction of selenium associated with sediment could be found that protects human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters and meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because of this, Line of Evidence No. 30276 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information in last assessment cycle.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 35 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objecitve. None of 37 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 2 fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino213852012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7675 is combined with LOE No. 5159 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. There were a total of two sediment samples collected. However, no evaluation guideline for the fraction of selenium associated with sediment could be found that protects human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters and meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because of this, Line of Evidence No. 30276 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information in last assessment cycle.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 35 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objecitve. None of 37 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 2 fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51762010State Reviewed SeleniumMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal350Sixty-nine water samples were taken at 6 locations on the lake. Thirty-four water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 35 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the limits specified belowÂ…Selenium 0.01 mg/l (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-nine discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino213852012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 7675 is combined with LOE No. 5159 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. There were a total of two sediment samples collected. However, no evaluation guideline for the fraction of selenium associated with sediment could be found that protects human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters and meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because of this, Line of Evidence No. 30276 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information in last assessment cycle.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 35 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objecitve. None of 37 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 2 fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51592010State Reviewed Chromium (total) | SeleniumMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal350Sixty-nine water samples were taken at 6 locations on the lake. Thirty-four water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 35 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.050 mg/l Chromium, and 0.050 mg/l Selenium (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-nine discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211412012Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria, or the Basin Plan water quality objective. None of 37 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51752010State Reviewed SilverMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal350Sixty-nine water samples were taken at 6 locations on the lake. Thirty-four water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 35 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the limits specified belowÂ…Silver 0.05 mg/l (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100100, 100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-nine discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211412012Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria, or the Basin Plan water quality objective. None of 37 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51692010State Reviewed Silver | ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-NuisanceWaterTotal350Sixty-nine water samples were taken at 6 locations on the lake. Thirty-four water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 35 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.1 mg/l Silver, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100100, 100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-nine discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211412012Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria, or the Basin Plan water quality objective. None of 37 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51432010State Reviewed Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal350Sixty-nine water samples were taken at 6 locations on the lake. Thirty-four water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 35 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100100, 100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-nine discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211412012Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria, or the Basin Plan water quality objective. None of 37 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76362010State Reviewed Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR hardness dependent criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Lead,Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211412012Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria, or the Basin Plan water quality objective. None of 37 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76782010State Reviewed Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211412012Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria, or the Basin Plan water quality objective. None of 37 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76922010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | SilverMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: Waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the following limits: 10 ug/l Cadmium, 50 ug/l Lead, 4 ug/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 100 ug/l Methoxychlor, and 50 ug/l Silver (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219932012Simazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7671 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76712010State Reviewed Atrazine | SimazineMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.001 mg/l Atrazine, and 0.004 mg/l Simazine (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211422012Specific Conductivity Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One out of 112 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51342010State Reviewed Specific ConductivityMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-NuisanceWaterNone1101One hundred and ten measurements were taken at 6 locations on the lake, generally collected from 8/19/1992 through 3/15/2006. Of these total measurements, 1 exceeded the CDPH SMCL. The exceedence was found in a measurement collected on 7/07/1997 from one location on the south end (56227) (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 1600 umhos/cm for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsMeasurements were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100100, 100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).One hundred and ten discrete measurements were collected. Measurements were generally collected from 8/19/1992 through 3/15/2006. Measurements were collected on 2 discrete dates in 1992, 2 in 1993, 5 dates in 1994, 15 dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 4 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, 2 dates in 2004, and 2 dates in 2006. The exceedence was found in a measurement collected on 7/07/1997. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211422012Specific Conductivity Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One out of 112 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76812010State Reviewed Specific ConductanceMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two measurements were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total measurements, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 1600 umhos for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsMeasurements were collected near the California Nevada Border. Measurements were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water quality measurements were collected. Water quality measurements were collected twice in 2002. Measurements were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino290102012Streptococcus, fecal Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess fecal Streptococcus consistent with Listing Policy section 3.3. No evaluation guideline for the total density of fecal Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there is no appropriate evaluation guideline, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the total density of fecal Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294812010State Reviewed Streptococcus, fecalWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal2 Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino223082012Styrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. This line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 sample exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76552010State Reviewed Styrene | Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10One water sample was collected in 5/2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. This sample did not exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.1 mg/l Styrene, and 0.15 mg/l Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASample was collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.One water sample was collected. A water sample was collected in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino213272012Sulfates Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 71 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76782010State Reviewed Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino213272012Sulfates Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 71 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51672010State Reviewed Chloride | SulfatesMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-NuisanceWaterTotal690Sixty-nine water quality samples were taken at 6 locations on the lake, generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 500 mg/l Chloride, and 500 mg/l Sulfate (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100101, 100100),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-nine discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino300822012Tetrachloroethylene/PCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7675 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence Nos. 7648 and 27043 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270432010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10Two samples were taken at 1 location in the interior of the lake. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water quality sample was collected in 10/2002 at 1 location. This sample did not exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino300822012Tetrachloroethylene/PCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7675 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence Nos. 7648 and 27043 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino300822012Tetrachloroethylene/PCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7675 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence Nos. 7648 and 27043 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 1 water sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76482010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10Two samples were taken at 1 location in the interior of the lake. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water quality sample was collected in 10/2002 at 1 location. This sample did not exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211562012Thallium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use rating of LOE Nos. 27041 and 5150 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 10 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51502010State Reviewed ThalliumMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal100Ten water quality samples were taken at 5 locations on the lake, generally collected from 3/18/1997 through 1/28/2004. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 1.7 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 56227, 100098), near the north end (100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Ten discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/18/1997 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 2 discrete dates in 1997, 2 dates in 2001, 1 date in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211562012Thallium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use rating of LOE Nos. 27041 and 5150 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 10 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270412010State Reviewed ThalliumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal100Ten water quality samples were taken at 5 locations on the lake, generally collected from 3/18/1997 through 1/28/2004. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 1.7 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 56227, 100098), near the north end (100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Ten discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/18/1997 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 2 discrete dates in 1997, 2 dates in 2001, 1 date in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino218932012Thiobencarb/Bolero Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use rating of LOE Nos. 7675 and 7678 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and the secondary MCL. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76782010State Reviewed Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino218932012Thiobencarb/Bolero Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use rating of LOE Nos. 7675 and 7678 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and the secondary MCL. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211572012Toluene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 12 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270422010State Reviewed TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal100Twelve water samples were taken at 4 locations on the lake. Two water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 10 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/2/2000 through 7/02/2001. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 6800 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098), near the north end (100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Twelve discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/2000 through 7/02/2001. Samples were collected on 3 discrete dates in 2000, and 5 dates in 2001. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211572012Toluene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 12 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51612010State Reviewed TolueneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal100Twelve water samples were taken at 4 locations on the lake. Two water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 10 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/2/2000 through 7/02/2001. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) of 0.15 mg/l for the protection of human health (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098), near the north end (100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Twelve discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/2000 through 7/02/2001. Samples were collected on 3 discrete dates in 2000, and 5 dates in 2001. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211572012Toluene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 12 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211572012Toluene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 12 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270382010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211572012Toluene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 12 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51472010State Reviewed TolueneMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal100Twelve water samples were taken at 4 locations on the lake. Two water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 10 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/2/2000 through 7/02/2001. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 6800 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098), near the north end (100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Twelve discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/2000 through 7/02/2001. Samples were collected on 3 discrete dates in 2000, and 5 dates in 2001. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino211572012Toluene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 12 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76512010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino291072012Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel is used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics.No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295332010State Reviewed Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as DieselWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal2 Two sediment samples were collected and analyzed in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel, used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics (dro), for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino291072012Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel is used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics.No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294802010State Reviewed Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as DieselWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved2 Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel, used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics (dro), for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino222142012Trichloroethylene/TCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7675 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 7648 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 1 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino222142012Trichloroethylene/TCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7675 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 7648 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. None of 1 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76482010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Benzene | Bromoform | Carbon tetrachloride | Dichlorobromomethane | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Trichloroethylene/TCEMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10Two samples were taken at 1 location in the interior of the lake. One water sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water quality sample was collected in 10/2002 at 1 location. This sample did not exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1.2 ug/l Benzene, 4.3 ug/l Bromoform, 0.25 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.56 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 0.38 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 0.52 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.44 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.80 ug/l Tetrachloroehtylene, 0.6 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 2.7 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220622012Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. This line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. This sample did not exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 sample exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76552010State Reviewed Styrene | Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10One water sample was collected in 5/2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. This sample did not exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 0.1 mg/l Styrene, and 0.15 mg/l Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASample was collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.One water sample was collected. A water sample was collected in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino213642012Turbidity Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three out of 35 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76052010State Reviewed TurbidityMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-NuisanceWaterNone20Two water quality measurements were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total measurements , none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 5 NTU for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsMeasurements were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water quality measurements were collected. Water quality measurements were collected twice in 2002. Measurements were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino213642012Turbidity Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three out of 35 water samples exceeded the drinking water secondary MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51362010State Reviewed TurbidityMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-NuisanceWaterNone333Thirty three measurements were taken at 3 locations on the lake, generally collected from 7/27/1994 through 1/28/2004. Of these total measurements , 3 exceeded the CDPH SMCL. The exceedences were found in measurements collected on 3/03/1995 at one location, and 5/16/1996 at two locations (100099, and 100100) (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 5 NTU for consumer acceptance (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsMeasurements were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the north end (100100, 100101),and midlake (100099).Thirty three discrete measurements were collected. Measurements were generally collected from 7/27/1994 through 9/30/2003. Measurements were collected on 1 discrete date in 1994, 8 dates in 1995, 6 dates in 1996, 2 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 2 dates in 2000, 6 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 1 date in 2004. The exceedences were found in measurements collected from 3/03/1995 through 5/16/1996. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino221572012Vinyl chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. This line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 1 sample exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76582010State Reviewed Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | Vinyl chlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10One water sample was collected in 5/2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. This sample did not exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 4000 ug/l Methyl Bromide, 1600 ug/l Dichloromethane, and 525 ug/l Vinyl Chloride (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  A sample was collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.One water samples was collected. A water sample was collected in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino212142012Xylenes (total) (mixed) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7675 and 5164 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 11 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino212142012Xylenes (total) (mixed) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7675 and 5164 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 11 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51642010State Reviewed Xylenes (total) (mixed)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal90Twelve water samples were taken at 4 locations on the lake. Three water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 9 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/2000 through 7/5/2001. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 1.75 mg/l for the protection of human health (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098), near the north end (100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Twelve discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/2000 through 7/05/2001. Samples were collected on 3 discrete dates in 2000, and 5 dates in 2001. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219982012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7624 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria, or the drinking water secondary MCL. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51432010State Reviewed Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal350Sixty-nine water samples were taken at 6 locations on the lake. Thirty-four water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 35 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100100, 100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-nine discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219982012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7624 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria, or the drinking water secondary MCL. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51692010State Reviewed Silver | ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-NuisanceWaterTotal350Sixty-nine water samples were taken at 6 locations on the lake. Thirty-four water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the samples results were non-detect and the detection limit could not be determined. The 35 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL criteria (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.1 mg/l Silver, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100100, 100101),and midlake (100102, 100099).Sixty-nine discrete samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 3/02/1995 through 1/28/2004. Samples were collected on 11 discrete dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, and 2 dates in 2004. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219982012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7624 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria, or the drinking water secondary MCL. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76782010State Reviewed Aluminum | Chloride | Copper | Manganese | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Silver | Sulfates | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ZincMunicipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH SMCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) for consumer acceptance were used for the following constituents: 0.2 mg/l Aluminum, 500 mg/l Chloride, 1 mg/l Copper, 0.05 mg/l Manganese, 0.005 mg/l MTBE, 0.1 mg/l Silver, 500 mg/l Sulfate, 0.001 mg/l Thiobencarb, and 5 mg/l Zinc (CCR, title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64449 Secondary Drinking Water StandardsSamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219982012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7624 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria, or the drinking water secondary MCL. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76362010State Reviewed Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR hardness dependent criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Lead,Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219982012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7624 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criteria, or the drinking water secondary MCL. None of 2 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76242010State Reviewed ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal20Two sediment samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples , none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) of 459 mg/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino292032012alpha-Chlordene | gama-Chlordene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess alpha-Chlordene, and gamma-Chlordene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295282010State Reviewed alpha-Chlordene | gama-ChlordeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal2 Two sediment samples were collected and analyzed in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino292032012alpha-Chlordene | gama-Chlordene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess alpha-Chlordene, and gamma-Chlordene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294712010State Reviewed alpha-Chlordene | gama-ChlordeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved2 Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220942012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76332010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220942012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461502012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671664alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Cold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Endosulfan concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220942012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461562012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671665alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Endosulfan concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220942012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   76512010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220942012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   270382010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220942012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461492012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671663alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Havasu, Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in fish tissue is 13,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Havasu, Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Lake Havasu_BOG - 714PLH216]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 9/5/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino299682012alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle.. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7651 and 27038 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76512010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino299682012alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle.. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7651 and 27038 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270382010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino217622012beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7651 and 27038 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270382010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino217622012beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7651 and 27038 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76512010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino216732012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7633, 27038 and 7651 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life uses, or human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76512010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino216732012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7633, 27038 and 7651 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life uses, or human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270382010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino216732012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 7633, 27038 and 7651 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life uses, or human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76332010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane 1724 ug/l Chromium, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 Heptachlor Epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino217602012cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 7675 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino293732012cis-Nonachlor | trans-Nonachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess cis-Nonachlor, and trans-Nonachlor consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295222010State Reviewed cis-Nonachlor | trans-NonachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal2 Two sediment samples were collected and analyzed in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino293732012cis-Nonachlor | trans-Nonachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess cis-Nonachlor, and trans-Nonachlor consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy could be found.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294672010State Reviewed cis-Nonachlor | trans-NonachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved2 Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219762012m-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 27038 and 7651 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270382010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219762012m-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 27038 and 7651 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76512010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino291522012o,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)) | o,p'-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | o,p'-DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | p,p'-DDMU Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, and p,p'-DDMU consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   294742010State Reviewed o,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)) | o,p'-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | o,p'-DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | p,p'-DDMUWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved2 Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220542012o-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings of are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220542012o-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings of are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270382010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino220542012o-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings of are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76512010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219772012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76512010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219772012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   76752010State Reviewed 1, 1-dichloroethane | 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene | 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Aluminum | Arsenic | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Cadmium | Chlordane | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Chromium (total) | Endrin | Ethylbenzene | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methoxychlor | Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) | Molinate | Nickel | Nitrate | Nitrogen, Nitrite | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Selenium | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Thiobencarb/Bolero | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | Xylenes (total) (mixed) | cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Municipal & Domestic Supply Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDPH MCL (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the protection of human health were used for the following constituents: 1 mg/l Aluminum, 0.05 mg/l Arsenic, 0.0002 mg/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.005 mg/l Cadmium, 0.0001 mg/l Chlordane, 0.05 mg/l Chromium, 0.6 mg/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 0.5 mg/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 0.005 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethane, 0.006 mg/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene, 0.006 mg/l cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene, 0.01 mg/l 1,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans, 0.005 mg/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 0.002 mg/l Endrin, 0.3 mg/l Ethylbenzene, 0.00001mg/l Heptachlor, 0.00001 mg/l Heptachlor Epoxide, 0.001 mg/l Hexachlorobenzene, 0.0002 mg/l Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 0.030 mg/l Methoxychlor, 0.013 mg/l Methly-Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE), 0.02 mg/l Molinate, 0.070 mg/l Chlorobenzene (mono), 0.1 mg/l Nickel, 0.045 mg/l Nitrate, 0.001 mg/l Nitrite as N, 0.0005 mg/l PCBs (total), 0.05 mg/l Selenium, 0.005 mg/l Tetrachloroethylene, 0.07 mg/l Thiobencarb, 0.15 mg/l Toluene, 0.005 mg/l 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene, 0.2 mg/l 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, 0.005 mg/l Trichloroethylene, and 1.75 mg/l Xylene (CCR, Title 22).1.Title 22, Division 4, Ch. 15, Article 4, Section 64431, Table 64431-ASamples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino219772012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming water and organisms from these waters. None of 2 water samples exceeded the drinking water MCL. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   270382010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Nickel | Pyrene | Toluene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | o-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water samples were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming water and organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 1200 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.0093 ug/l alpha-BHC, 110 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 9600 ug/l Anthracene, 0.014 ug/l beta-BHC, 110 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 680 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 1300 ug/l Copper, 2700 ug/l o-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 400 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 110 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.76 ug/l Endrin, 0.76 Endrin Aldehyde, 3100 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 300 ug/l Fluoranthene, 1300 ug/l Fluorene, 610 ug/l Nickel, 960 ug/l Pyrene,and 6800 ug/l Toluene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected twice in 2002. Samples were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214412012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 114 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51732010State Reviewed pHWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal1120One hundred twelve water quality measurements were taken at 7 locations on the lake, generally collected from 8/19/1992 through 3/15/2006. Of these total measurements, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Measurements were collected from the following Lake Havasu locations: near the south end (Station ID No. 100098, 56227), near the north end (100101, 100100),and midlake (100102, 100099, 100144).One hundred twelve discrete measurements were collected. Measurements were generally collected from 8/19/1992 through 3/15/2006. Measurements were collected on 2 discrete dates in 1992, 2 dates in 1993, 5 dates in 1994, 16 dates in 1995, 8 dates in 1996, 4 dates in 1997, 2 dates in 1998 , 3 dates in 2000, 8 dates in 2001, 2 dates in 2002, 3 dates in 2003, 2 dates in 2004, and 2 dates in 2006. Sampling was conducted in accordance with approved sampling methods similar to ADEQ, 2005. Sample analysis was carried out using EPA approved methods (USEPA, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and reported on the USEPA Storet system. 1995-2004. 2.A Manual of Procedures for the Sampling of Surface Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionHavasu, LakeCAL7140000020040823161128Lake & Reservoir 10713.300000,10714.00000015030101010102150301010604,150301010701,150301010702,150301010705,150301010707,150301010709,150301010710,150301010712,150301010713San Bernardino214412012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 114 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   77062010State Reviewed pHWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone20Two measurements were collected in 2002 at 1 location in the interior of the lake. Of these total measurements, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Measurements were collected from one location in the interior of Lake Havasu.Two water quality measurements were collected. Water quality measurements were collected twice in 2002. Measurements were collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial2958320121-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Naphthalene, Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, and 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Naphthalene, Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Naphthalene, Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298712010State Reviewed 1-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | NaphthaleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved6 Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Naphthalene, Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected from all three sampling locations and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial2958320121-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Naphthalene, Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, and 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Naphthalene, Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Naphthalene, Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300532010State Reviewed 1-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | AcenaphthyleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal5 Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October of 2002 at 3 locations along Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at all three sampling locations. In October of 2002 sediment samples were collected and analyzed at the Niland 4 and Trifolium TD1 sampling locations only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial2959620121-Methylphenanthrene | Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Phenanthrene, and 1-Methylphenanthrene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298702010State Reviewed 1-Methylphenanthrene | PhenanthreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved6 Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected from all three sampling locations and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial2959620121-Methylphenanthrene | Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Phenanthrene, and 1-Methylphenanthrene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300522010State Reviewed 1-MethylphenanthreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal5 Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October of 2002 at 3 locations along Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at all three sampling locations. In October of 2002 sediment samples were collected and analyzed at the Niland 4 and Trifolium TD1 sampling locations only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial296362012Acenaphthene | Dichlorobenzophenone | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Acenaphthene, pp-DCBP, and Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, pp-DCBP, or Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, pp-DCBP, or Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300752010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Dichlorobenzophenone | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal5 Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October of 2002 at 3 locations along Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, pp-DCBP, or Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at all three sampling locations. In October of 2002 sediment samples were collected and analyzed at the Niland 4 and Trifolium TD1 sampling locations only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial191212012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 45990 is combined with LOE No. 5573 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459902012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671425AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. Eleven composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial191212012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 45990 is combined with LOE No. 5573 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55732010State Reviewed AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal400Twenty-one fish fillet samples and nineteen whole fish samples were taken at 14 locations in Imperial Valley drains. The fish samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Rice drain 3, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach Drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, and Warren drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, tilapia, flathead catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle, redbelly tilapia, and yellow bullhead were collected. Eight carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1985, 1986, 1988, (3)1990, and 1999. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989-90. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. One flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. One yellow bullhead fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Nineteen whole fish samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Twelve mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in 1985, 1989, (2)1990, (3)1991, 1995-96, and (3)2000. Seven sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, (2)2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial191212012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 45990 is combined with LOE No. 5573 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50592010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial296272012Aldrin | Chlorpyrifos | Diazinon | Toxaphene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, and Toxaphene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300742010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlorpyrifos | Diazinon | ToxapheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal5 Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October of 2002 at 3 locations along Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at all three sampling locations. In October of 2002 sediment samples were collected and analyzed at the Niland 4 and Trifolium TD1 sampling locations only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial296252012Aluminum | Manganese | Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Aluminum, Manganese, and Silver consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300712010State Reviewed Aluminum | Manganese | SilverWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal5 Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October of 2002 at 3 locations along Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at all three sampling locations. In October of 2002 sediment samples were collected and analyzed at the Niland 4 and Trifolium TD1 sampling locations only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial295922012Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn | Terbutryn Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, and Terbutryn consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, or Terbutryn for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, or Terbutryn for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298822010State Reviewed Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn | TerbutrynWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved6 Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, or Terbutryn for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected from all three sampling locations and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial212732012Anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No 5066 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50662010State Reviewed Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin aldehyde | Fluorene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, and14000 ug/l Fluorene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial296092012Anthracene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, and Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300622010State Reviewed Anthracene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Dibenz[a,h]anthraceneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal5 Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October of 2002 at 3 locations along Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at all three sampling locations. In October of 2002 sediment samples were collected and analyzed at the Niland 4 and Trifolium TD1 sampling locations only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial214122012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55452010State Reviewed ArsenicCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal120Twenty-three fish fillet samples and 24 whole fish samples were taken at 19 locations in Imperial Valley drains. Nineteen fish fillet and 16 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the consituent was not analyzed in the sample. The 4 fish fillet samples and 8 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 8/1990 through 11/2000 at nine locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 1 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, Warren drain, Dixie drain No.1, Dixie drain No.3, Dixie drain No.5, Forgetmenot drain, and West Side drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-three fish fillet samples of carp, tilapia, channel catfish, flathead catfish, spiny soft shell turtle, redbelly tilapia, and Mozambique tilapia were collected. Seven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, (2)1986, (3)1990 and 1999. Three carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1986, 1989-90. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Three Mozambique tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in year (3)1986. Twenty-four whole fish composite samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Fifteen mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1985, (2)1986, 1989, (2)1990, (4)1991, 1995-96, (3)2000. Nine sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in the years (3)1986, (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, 2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial214122012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459912012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671426ArsenicCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. Seventeen composites (1 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Seventeen samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for arsenic in fish tissue is 0.0034 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. It is assumed that 10% of the total arsenic is present as inorganic arsenic. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial214122012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51082010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial214122012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50722010State Reviewed ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effects Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effect Criteria of 0.25 mg/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (USDOI, 1998).1.Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial214122012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50592010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial300812012Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | Secbumeton Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Atroton, Prometon, and Secbumeton consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Atroton, Prometon, or Secbumeton for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Atroton, Prometon, or Secbumeton for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298852010State Reviewed Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | SecbumetonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved6 Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Atroton, Prometon, or Secbumeton for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected from all three sampling locations and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial293762012Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Azinphos, methyl, and Azinphos, ethyl consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Azinphos, methyl, or Azinphos, ethyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Azinphos, methyl, or Azinphos, ethyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298742010State Reviewed Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved6 Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Azinphos, methyl, or Azinphos, ethyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected from all three sampling locations and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial210602012Benzo(a)anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 5108 and 5071 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 3 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 5 sediment samples exceed the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50712010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved30Three water quality samples were collected and analyzed in October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Three water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed in October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial210602012Benzo(a)anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 5108 and 5071 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 3 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 5 sediment samples exceed the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51082010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial212242012Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 4963 and 5071 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 3 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   49632010State Reviewed Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Five sediment quality samples were generally collected and analyzed in May and October of 2002 at 3 locations along Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) of 1450 ug/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. Samples were not collected at each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial212242012Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 4963 and 5071 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 3 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50712010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved30Three water quality samples were collected and analyzed in October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Three water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed in October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial295982012Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | Terbufos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, and Terbufos consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300592010State Reviewed Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | BiphenylWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal5 Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October of 2002 at 3 locations along Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at all three sampling locations. In October of 2002 sediment samples were collected and analyzed at the Niland 4 and Trifolium TD1 sampling locations only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial295982012Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | Terbufos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, and Terbufos consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298812010State Reviewed Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | TerbufosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved6 Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected from all three sampling locations and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial212092012Benzo[b]fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 5071 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 3 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50712010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved30Three water quality samples were collected and analyzed in October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Three water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed in October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial288412012Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, and Benzo(k)Fluoranthene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300682010State Reviewed Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluorantheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal5 Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October of 2002 at 3 locations along Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at all three sampling locations. In October of 2002 sediment samples were collected and analyzed at the Niland 4 and Trifolium TD1 sampling locations only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial212102012Benzo[k]fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 5071 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 3 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50712010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved30Three water quality samples were collected and analyzed in October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Three water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed in October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial293882012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, and Oxadiazon consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxadiazon or the sediment fractions of Dacthal, Mirex, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxadiazon or the sediment fractions of Dacthal, Mirex, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300572010State Reviewed Dacthal | Mirex | OxadiazonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal5 Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October of 2002 at 3 locations along Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Dacthal, Mirex, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at all three sampling locations. In October of 2002 sediment samples were collected and analyzed at the Niland 4 and Trifolium TD1 sampling locations only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial293882012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, and Oxadiazon consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxadiazon or the sediment fractions of Dacthal, Mirex, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxadiazon or the sediment fractions of Dacthal, Mirex, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298782010State Reviewed Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | OxadiazonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved6 Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxodiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected from all three sampling locations and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211162012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50622010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved50Five water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211162012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55462010State Reviewed CadmiumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal90Twenty-three fish fillet samples and 24 whole fish samples were taken at 19 locations in Imperial Valley drains. Twenty-two fish fillet and 16 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the consituent was not analyzed in the sample. The 1 fillet and 8 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 8/1990 through 11/2000 at seven locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 3 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, Warren drain, Dixie drain No.1, Dixie drain No.3, Dixie drain No.5, Forgetmenot drain, and West Side drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-three fish fillet samples of carp, tilapia, channel catfish, flathead catfish, spiny soft shell turtle, redbelly tilapia, and Mozambique tilapia were collected. Seven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, (2)1986, (3)1990 and 1999. Three carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1986, 1989-90. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Three Mozambique tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in year (3)1986. Twenty-four whole fish composite samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Fifteen mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1985, (2)1986, 1989, (2)1990, (4)1991, 1995-96, (3)2000. Nine sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in the years (3)1986, (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, 2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211162012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   459922012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671427CadmiumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. Seventeen composites (1 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for cadmium in fish tissue is 2.2 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211162012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 13 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51082010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial296152012Carbon (organic) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess organic Carbon consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300762010State Reviewed Carbon (organic)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal5 Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October of 2002 at 3 locations along Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at all three sampling locations. In October of 2002 sediment samples were collected and analyzed at the Niland 4 and Trifolium TD1 sampling locations only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial295902012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, and Tokuthion consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion or the sediment fractions of Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion or the sediment fractions of Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300542010State Reviewed Methyl Parathion | ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal5 Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October of 2002 at 3 locations along Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Ethyl Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at all three sampling locations. In October of 2002 sediment samples were collected and analyzed at the Niland 4 and Trifolium TD1 sampling locations only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial295902012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, and Tokuthion consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion or the sediment fractions of Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion or the sediment fractions of Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298722010State Reviewed Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | TokuthionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved6 Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected from all three sampling locations and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial293772012Chlorfenvinphos | Chlorpyrifos, methyl | Cuomaphos | Dicrotophos | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | Fenchlorphos | Leptophos | Merphos | Mevinphos | TetrachlorvinphosSource UnknownDo Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, and Chlorpyrifos Methyl consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298762010State Reviewed Chlorfenvinphos | Chlorpyrifos, methyl | Cuomaphos | Dicrotophos | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | Fenchlorphos | Leptophos | Merphos | Mevinphos | TetrachlorvinphosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved6 Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected from all three sampling locations and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211272012Chlorpyrifos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55312010State Reviewed ChlorpyrifosCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal400Twenty-one fish fillet samples and nineteen whole fish samples were taken at 14 locations in Imperial Valley drains. The fish samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 10000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Rice drain 3, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach Drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, and Warren drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, tilapia, flathead catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle, redbelly tilapia, and yellow bullhead were collected. Eight carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1985, 1986, 1988, (3)1990, and 1999. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989-90. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. One flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. One yellow bullhead fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Nineteen whole fish samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Twelve mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in 1985, 1989, (2)1990, (3)1991, 1995-96, and (3)2000. Seven sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, (2)2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211272012Chlorpyrifos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460022012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671430ChlorpyrifosCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. Eleven composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for chlorpyrifos in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211712012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 5108 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51082010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial210622012Chrysene (C1-C4) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use rating of LOE Nos. 5108 and 5071 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 3 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51082010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial210622012Chrysene (C1-C4) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use rating of LOE Nos. 5108 and 5071 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 3 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50712010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved30Three water quality samples were collected and analyzed in October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Three water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed in October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211852012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 water samples exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   49442010State Reviewed CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002 at 3 Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211852012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 water samples exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50732010State Reviewed CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved50Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effects Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effects Criteria of 15 mg/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (USDOI, 1998).1.Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211852012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use ratings are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 water samples exceeded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criteria. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51082010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial220362012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game criteria. None of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline, and none of four fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49522010State Reviewed DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October of 2002 at 3 locations along Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDFG Hazardous Assessment Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.16 ug/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and GameSamples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. Quality Assurance and Quality Control for the sampling and analysis of this study was conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial220362012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game criteria. None of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline, and none of four fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55322010State Reviewed DiazinonCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal400Twenty-one fish fillet samples and nineteen whole fish samples were taken at 14 locations in Imperial Valley drains. The fish samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value. (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 300 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Rice drain 3, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach Drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, and Warren drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, tilapia, flathead catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle, redbelly tilapia, and yellow bullhead were collected. Eight carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1985, 1986, 1988, (3)1990, and 1999. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989-90. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. One flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. One yellow bullhead fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Nineteen whole fish samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Twelve mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in 1985, 1989, (2)1990, (3)1991, 1995-96, and (3)2000. Seven sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, (2)2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial220362012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game criteria. None of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline, and none of four fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461672012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671433DiazinonCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. Eleven composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for diazinon in fish tissue is 1,500 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial210612012Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 5071 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 3 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50712010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved30Three water quality samples were collected and analyzed in October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Three water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed in October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial296042012Dibenzothiophene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Dibenzothiophene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300612010State Reviewed DibenzothiopheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal5 Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October of 2002 at 3 locations along Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel, used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics (dro), for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at all three sampling locations. In October of 2002 sediment samples were collected and analyzed at the Niland 4 and Trifolium TD1 sampling locations only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial296042012Dibenzothiophene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Dibenzothiophene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298892010State Reviewed DibenzothiopheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved3 Three water quality samples were collected and analyzed in October of 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Three water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from all three sampling locations and analyzed in October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial213582012Endosulfan sulfate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 5066 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50662010State Reviewed Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin aldehyde | Fluorene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, and14000 ug/l Fluorene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial296102012Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, and Endosulfan Sulfate consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300692010State Reviewed Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal5 Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October of 2002 at 3 locations along Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at all three sampling locations. In October of 2002 sediment samples were collected and analyzed at the Niland 4 and Trifolium TD1 sampling locations only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211532012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46197 is combined with LOE No. 5615 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guidelines. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55342010State Reviewed EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal400Twenty-one fish fillet samples and nineteen whole fish samples were taken at 14 locations in Imperial Valley drains. The fish samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 1000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Rice drain 3, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach Drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, and Warren drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, tilapia, flathead catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle, redbelly tilapia, and yellow bullhead were collected. Eight carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1985, 1986, 1988, (3)1990, and 1999. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989-90. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. One flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. One yellow bullhead fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Nineteen whole fish samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Twelve mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in 1985, 1989, (2)1990, (3)1991, 1995-96, and (3)2000. Seven sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, (2)2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211532012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46197 is combined with LOE No. 5615 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guidelines. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461972012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671439EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. Eleven composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211532012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46197 is combined with LOE No. 5615 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guidelines. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461842012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671438EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. Eleven composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211532012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46197 is combined with LOE No. 5615 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guidelines. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56152010State Reviewed EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal400Twenty-one fish fillet samples and nineteen whole fish samples were taken at 14 locations in Imperial Valley drains. The fish samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Rice drain 3, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach Drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, and Warren drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, tilapia, flathead catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle, redbelly tilapia, and yellow bullhead were collected. Eight carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1985, 1986, 1988, (3)1990, and 1999. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989-90. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. One flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. One yellow bullhead fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Nineteen whole fish samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Twelve mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in 1985, 1989, (2)1990, (3)1991, 1995-96, and (3)2000. Seven sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, (2)2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211532012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46197 is combined with LOE No. 5615 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guidelines. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51082010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211532012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46197 is combined with LOE No. 5615 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guidelines. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50672010State Reviewed Endrin | Fluoranthene | Nickel | PyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved50Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 4600 ug/l Nickel, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211522012Endrin aldehyde Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 5066 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50662010State Reviewed Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin aldehyde | Fluorene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, and14000 ug/l Fluorene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial220632012Ethion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   55412010State Reviewed EthionCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal400Twenty-one fish fillet samples and nineteen whole fish samples were taken at 14 locations in Imperial Valley drains. The fish samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 2000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Rice drain 3, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach Drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, and Warren drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, tilapia, flathead catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle, redbelly tilapia, and yellow bullhead were collected. Eight carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1985, 1986, 1988, (3)1990, and 1999. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989-90. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. One flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. One yellow bullhead fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Nineteen whole fish samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Twelve mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in 1985, 1989, (2)1990, (3)1991, 1995-96, and (3)2000. Seven sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, (2)2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial212082012Fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use rating of the LOE Nos. 5067 and 5108 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50672010State Reviewed Endrin | Fluoranthene | Nickel | PyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved50Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 4600 ug/l Nickel, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial212082012Fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use rating of the LOE Nos. 5067 and 5108 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51082010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211542012Fluorene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use rating of the LOE Nos. 5066 and 5108 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51082010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211542012Fluorene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use rating of the LOE Nos. 5066 and 5108 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50662010State Reviewed Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin aldehyde | Fluorene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, and14000 ug/l Fluorene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial214222012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46200 is combined with LOE No. 5625 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50592010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial214222012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46200 is combined with LOE No. 5625 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462002012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671442HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. Eleven composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial214222012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46200 is combined with LOE No. 5625 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56252010State Reviewed HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal400Twenty-one fish fillet samples and nineteen whole fish samples were taken at 14 locations in Imperial Valley drains. The fish samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Rice drain 3, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach Drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, and Warren drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, tilapia, flathead catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle, redbelly tilapia, and yellow bullhead were collected. Eight carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1985, 1986, 1988, (3)1990, and 1999. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989-90. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. One flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. One yellow bullhead fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Nineteen whole fish samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Twelve mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in 1985, 1989, (2)1990, (3)1991, 1995-96, and (3)2000. Seven sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, (2)2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial214232012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46214 is combined with LOE No. 5634 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462142012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671444Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. Eleven composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial214232012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46214 is combined with LOE No. 5634 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462132012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671443Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. Eleven composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Eleven samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in fish tissue is 0.93 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking WaterData for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial214232012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46214 is combined with LOE No. 5634 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55422010State Reviewed Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal90Twenty-one fish fillet samples and nineteen whole fish samples were taken at 14 locations in Imperial Valley drains. Seventeen fish fillet and 14 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentrations. The 4 fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 12/1999 through 11/2000 at five locations. Of these total samples, none OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 4 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Rice drain 3, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach Drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, and Warren drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, tilapia, flathead catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle, redbelly tilapia, and yellow bullhead were collected. Eight carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1985, 1986, 1988, (3)1990, and 1999. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989-90. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. One flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. One yellow bullhead fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Nineteen whole fish samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Twelve mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in 1985, 1989, (2)1990, (3)1991, 1995-96, and (3)2000. Seven sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, (2)2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial214232012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46214 is combined with LOE No. 5634 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56342010State Reviewed Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal400Twenty-one fish fillet samples and nineteen whole fish samples were taken at 14 locations in Imperial Valley drains. The fish samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Rice drain 3, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach Drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, and Warren drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, tilapia, flathead catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle, redbelly tilapia, and yellow bullhead were collected. Eight carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1985, 1986, 1988, (3)1990, and 1999. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989-90. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. One flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. One yellow bullhead fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Nineteen whole fish samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Twelve mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in 1985, 1989, (2)1990, (3)1991, 1995-96, and (3)2000. Seven sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, (2)2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial214232012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46214 is combined with LOE No. 5634 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50592010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial296242012Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Heptachlor, and Heptachlor Epoxide consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300702010State Reviewed Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal5 Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October of 2002 at 3 locations along Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at all three sampling locations. In October of 2002 sediment samples were collected and analyzed at the Niland 4 and Trifolium TD1 sampling locations only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial220642012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, none of four fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55432010State Reviewed Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal400Twenty-one fish fillet samples and nineteen whole fish samples were taken at 14 locations in Imperial Valley drains. The fish samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 20 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Rice drain 3, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach Drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, and Warren drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, tilapia, flathead catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle, redbelly tilapia, and yellow bullhead were collected. Eight carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1985, 1986, 1988, (3)1990, and 1999. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989-90. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. One flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. One yellow bullhead fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Nineteen whole fish samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Twelve mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in 1985, 1989, (2)1990, (3)1991, 1995-96, and (3)2000. Seven sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, (2)2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial220642012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, none of four fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462152012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671445Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobenzene. Eleven composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue is 2.8 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial296262012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Methoxychlor | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, and Methoxychlor consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300732010State Reviewed Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Methoxychlor | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal5 Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October of 2002 at 3 locations along Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at all three sampling locations. In October of 2002 sediment samples were collected and analyzed at the Niland 4 and Trifolium TD1 sampling locations only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211882012Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (mixture) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guidelines and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   67342010State Reviewed Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (mixture)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal400Twenty-one fish fillet samples and nineteen whole fish samples were taken at 14 locations in Imperial Valley drains. The fish samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Rice drain 3, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach Drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, and Warren drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, tilapia, flathead catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle, redbelly tilapia, and yellow bullhead were collected. Eight carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1985, 1986, 1988, (3)1990, and 1999. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989-90. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. One flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. One yellow bullhead fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Nineteen whole fish samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Twelve mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in 1985, 1989, (2)1990, (3)1991, 1995-96, and (3)2000. Seven sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, (2)2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial296082012Hydroxide | Pheophytin a Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.7.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Hydroxide, and Pheophytin a consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.7.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Hydroxide, or Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Hydroxide, or Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298902010State Reviewed Hydroxide | Pheophytin aWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved3 Three water quality samples were collected and analyzed in October of 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for Hydroxide, or Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Three water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from all three sampling locations and analyzed in May of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial212722012Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 5071 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 3 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50712010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved30Three water quality samples were collected and analyzed in October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Three water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed in October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211172012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use rating of the LOE Nos. 5108 and 5062 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51082010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211172012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use rating of the LOE Nos. 5108 and 5062 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50622010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved50Five water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211862012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46199 is combined with LOE No. 6742 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guidelines, and none of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51082010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211862012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46199 is combined with LOE No. 6742 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guidelines, and none of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55442010State Reviewed Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal400Twenty-one fish fillet samples and nineteen whole fish samples were taken at 14 locations in Imperial Valley drains. The fish samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 30 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Rice drain 3, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach Drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, and Warren drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, tilapia, flathead catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle, redbelly tilapia, and yellow bullhead were collected. Eight carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1985, 1986, 1988, (3)1990, and 1999. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989-90. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. One flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. One yellow bullhead fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Nineteen whole fish samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Twelve mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in 1985, 1989, (2)1990, (3)1991, 1995-96, and (3)2000. Seven sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, (2)2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211862012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46199 is combined with LOE No. 6742 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guidelines, and none of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   67422010State Reviewed Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal400Twenty-one fish fillet samples and nineteen whole fish samples were taken at 14 locations in Imperial Valley drains. The fish samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Rice drain 3, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach Drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, and Warren drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1985 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-one fish fillet samples of carp, channel catfish, tilapia, flathead catfish, spiny soft shelled turtle, redbelly tilapia, and yellow bullhead were collected. Eight carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1985, 1986, 1988, (3)1990, and 1999. Two carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989-90. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. One flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. One yellow bullhead fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Nineteen whole fish samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Twelve mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in 1985, 1989, (2)1990, (3)1991, 1995-96, and (3)2000. Seven sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, (2)2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211862012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46199 is combined with LOE No. 6742 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guidelines, and none of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461982012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671440Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. Eleven composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in fish tissue is 4.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211862012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46199 is combined with LOE No. 6742 for a use rating determination because both of them were assessed for the same beneficial uses, in the same matrix, and the same water quality objectives. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guidelines, and none of 40 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461992012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671441Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. Eleven composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211872012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. None of 15 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and none of four fish tissue samples exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55652010State Reviewed MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal150Twenty-three fish fillet samples and 24 whole fish samples were taken at 19 locations in Imperial Valley drains. Sixteen fish fillet and 16 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the consituent was not analyzed in the sample. The 7 fish fillet sample and 8 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 8/1990 through 11/2000 at nine locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 0.3 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Imperial Valley drain locations; Rose drain, Holtville Main drain, Central drain, South Central drain, Verde drain, Greeson drain, Fig drain, Pumice drain, Mayflower drain, Orange drain, Peach drain, Tokay drain, Barbara Worth drain, Warren drain, Dixie drain No.1, Dixie drain No.3, Dixie drain No.5, Forgetmenot drain, and West Side drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 10/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty-three fish fillet samples of carp, tilapia, channel catfish, flathead catfish, spiny soft shell turtle, redbelly tilapia, and Mozambique tilapia were collected. Seven carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, (2)1986, (3)1990 and 1999. Three carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1986, 1989-90. Two tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1996, and 2000. Three channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1989-90, and 1999. One channel catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1999. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1988. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1992. One redbelly tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. Three Mozambique tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in year (3)1986. Twenty-four whole fish composite samples of mosquitofish, and sailfin molly were collected. Fifteen mosquitofish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1985, (2)1986, 1989, (2)1990, (4)1991, 1995-96, (3)2000. Nine sailfin molly whole fish composite samples were collected in the years (3)1986, (2)1989, 1991, (2)1992, 2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211872012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. None of 15 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and none of four fish tissue samples exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462282012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671446MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. A total of 12 composite were used in this assessment. Four composites were generated from two species for Central Drain: common carp (2 fish per composite) and channel catfish (3 fish per composite). Five composites were generated from two species for Greeson Drain: channel catfish (2-3 fish per composite) and Tilapia spp. (1 fish per composite). Five composites could not be used in the assessment due to a total fish length that did not fall within lengths noted in the guideline. Composites comprised of 1 fish per composite. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish (150 - 500 mm; fillet wet weight) is 0.20 mg/kg.1.Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001Data for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211872012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. None of 15 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and none of four fish tissue samples exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51082010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial307662012Mirex Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Eleven composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Eleven samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462292012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671447MirexCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Imperial Valley Drains to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Mirex. Eleven composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from three species: common carp, Tilapia spp, and channel catfish. Eleven samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in fish tissue is 0.28 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens.Data for this line of evidence for Imperial Valley Drains was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Central Drain - 723CNTDRN, Greeson Drain - 723GRSDRN]Data was collected over the time period 11/2/2004-11/4/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial220262012Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 5108 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51082010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211182012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use rating of the LOE Nos. 5108, 5062, and 5067 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life uses, or human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51082010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211182012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use rating of the LOE Nos. 5108, 5062, and 5067 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life uses, or human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50672010State Reviewed Endrin | Fluoranthene | Nickel | PyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved50Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 4600 ug/l Nickel, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211182012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use rating of the LOE Nos. 5108, 5062, and 5067 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life uses, or human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50622010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved50Five water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial295972012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, and Trichlorfon consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, Trichlorfon or the sediment fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, or Tedion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, Trichlorfon or the sediment fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, or Tedion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298802010State Reviewed Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | TrichloronateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved6 Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected from all three sampling locations and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial295972012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, and Trichlorfon consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, Trichlorfon or the sediment fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, or Tedion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, Trichlorfon or the sediment fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, or Tedion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300582010State Reviewed Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | TedionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal5 Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October of 2002 at 3 locations along Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, or Tedion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at all three sampling locations. In October of 2002 sediment samples were collected and analyzed at the Niland 4 and Trifolium TD1 sampling locations only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial220352012Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 5108 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51082010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial296022012Propazine | Terbuthylazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Propazine, and Terbuthylazine consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Propazine, or Terbuthylazine for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Propazine, or Terbuthylazine for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298872010State Reviewed Propazine | TerbuthylazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved6 Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Propazine, or Terbuthylazine for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected from all three sampling locations and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial212112012Pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use rating of the LOE Nos. 5108 and 5067 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50672010State Reviewed Endrin | Fluoranthene | Nickel | PyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved50Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 4600 ug/l Nickel, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial212112012Pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use rating of the LOE Nos. 5108 and 5067 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51082010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial219122012Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 5063 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50632010State Reviewed SilverWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMC) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial296032012Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel is used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300602010State Reviewed Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as DieselWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal4 Four sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October of 2002 at 3 locations along Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel, used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics (dro), for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Four sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at all three sampling locations. In October of 2002 a sediment sample was collected and analyzed from and Trifolium TD1 sampling location only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial296032012Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel is used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298882010State Reviewed Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as DieselWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for dissolved fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel, used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics (dro), for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed at W Drain and Trifolium Drain TD1 sampling locations in May of 2002. Water samples were generally collected from all three sampling locations and analyzed in October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211192012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use rating of the LOE Nos. 5062 and 4969 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   49692010State Reviewed ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal50Five sediment quality samples were generally collected and analyzed in May and October of 2002 at 3 locations along Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) of 459 mg/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002.Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211192012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, use rating of the LOE Nos. 5062 and 4969 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 5 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50622010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved50Five water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial295912012alpha-Chlordene | gama-Chlordene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess alpha-Chlordene, and gamma-Chlordene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298732010State Reviewed alpha-Chlordene | gama-ChlordeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved6 Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected from all three sampling locations and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial295912012alpha-Chlordene | gama-Chlordene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess alpha-Chlordene, and gamma-Chlordene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300552010State Reviewed alpha-Chlordene | gama-ChlordeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal5 Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October of 2002 at 3 locations along Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at all three sampling locations. In October of 2002 sediment samples were collected and analyzed at the Niland 4 and Trifolium TD1 sampling locations only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial213562012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 5059 and 5066 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life uses, or human health when consuming organisms from this water. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50592010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial213562012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 5059 and 5066 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life uses, or human health when consuming organisms from this water. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50662010State Reviewed Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin aldehyde | Fluorene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, and14000 ug/l Fluorene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211372012alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No 5066 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50662010State Reviewed Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin aldehyde | Fluorene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, and14000 ug/l Fluorene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial211382012beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 5066 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50662010State Reviewed Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin aldehyde | Fluorene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, and14000 ug/l Fluorene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial213572012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 5066 and 5059 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life uses, or human health when consuming organisms from this water. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50592010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial213572012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE Nos. 5066 and 5059 are changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life uses, or human health when consuming organisms from this water. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50662010State Reviewed Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin aldehyde | Fluorene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, and14000 ug/l Fluorene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial299842012cis-Nonachlor | trans-Nonachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess cis-Nonachlor, and trans-Nonachlor consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298692010State Reviewed cis-Nonachlor | trans-NonachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved6 Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected from all three sampling locations and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial299842012cis-Nonachlor | trans-Nonachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess cis-Nonachlor, and trans-Nonachlor consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300512010State Reviewed cis-Nonachlor | trans-NonachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal5 Five sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October of 2002 at 3 locations along Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Five sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at all three sampling locations. In October of 2002 sediment samples were collected and analyzed at the Niland 4 and Trifolium TD1 sampling locations only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial299832012delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess delta-BHC consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300502010State Reviewed delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal3 Three sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 at 3 locations along Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Three sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial299832012delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess delta-BHC consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298682010State Reviewed delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved6 Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected from all three sampling locations and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial293782012o,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)) | o,p'-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | o,p'-DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | p,p'-DDMU Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, and p,p'-DDMU consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298772010State Reviewed o,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)) | o,p'-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | o,p'-DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | p,p'-DDMUWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved6 Six water quality samples were collected and analyzed in May and October 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley Drains (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected from all three sampling locations and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionImperial Valley DrainsCAR7231000019990205150323River & Stream 72310000  Imperial220652012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 5118 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   51182010State Reviewed pHWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved60Six water quality measurements were collected and analyzed twice in 2002 at 3 locations in Imperial Valley drains. Of these total measurements, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Measurements were collected from three Imperial Valley Drains ;Trifolium TD1, Niland 4, and W.Six measurements were collected. Measurements were generally collected and analyzed twice, in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2933120121,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Methylene Bromide, Bromochloromethane, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane, 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropane, 2,2-Dichloropropane, and 1,1-Dichloropropene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methylene Bromide, Bromochloromethane, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane, 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropane, 2,2-Dichloropropane, or 1,1-Dichloropropene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methylene Bromide, Bromochloromethane, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane, 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropane, 2,2-Dichloropropane, or 1,1-Dichloropropene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298382010State Reviewed 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved15 Fifteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 4 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chloroform, Methylene Bromide, Bromochloromethane, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane, 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropane, 2,2-Dichloropropane, or 1,1-Dichloropropene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. An extra sample was collected from the International Boundary location in July of 2003. At Even Hewes and Drop 2 samples were collected in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2095020121,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356462012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1681311,1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal110Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceed the criterion for Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1, 2, 2-Tetrachloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 11 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2095020121,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   359002012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1683711,1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1, 2, 2-Tetrachloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 11 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2095020121,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50372010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved190Nineteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 4 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 11 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ninteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the international Boundary and the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Another sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 7/2003. The rest of the locations were sampled twice in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2152920121,1,2-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   359782012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1683291,1,2-TrichloroethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 42 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2152920121,1,2-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50382010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Ethylbenzene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved190Nineteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 4 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Nineteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the international Boundary and the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Another sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 7/2003. The rest of the locations were sampled twice in May and october of 2002 The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2152920121,1,2-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347382012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674591,1,2-TrichloroethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal110Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 42 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2135220121,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determiantion. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 29 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50412010State Reviewed 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzene | Carbon tetrachlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved160Sixteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 4 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, and 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Nineteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Another sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 7/2003. The rest of the locations were sampled twice in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2135220121,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determiantion. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 29 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347612012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674701,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene ChlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal110Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1-Dichloroethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1-Dichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 3.2 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2135220121,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determiantion. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 29 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   359792012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1683301,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene ChlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1-Dichloroethylene.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1-Dichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 3.2 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2957720121,2,3-Trichlorobenzene | Chloroethane | Dichlorodifluoromethane | Methyl chloride (Chloromethane) | cis-1,3-Dichloropropene | trans-1,3-Dichloropropene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane, Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, and 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane, Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane, Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298642010State Reviewed 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene | Chloroethane | Dichlorodifluoromethane | Methyl chloride (Chloromethane) | cis-1,3-Dichloropropene | trans-1,3-DichloropropeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 7/2003 at 4 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from all four sampling locations in 5/2002. In 7/2003 a sample was collected from the International Boundary only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial3094420121,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceed the National Recommended Water Quality and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347942012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674791,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal110Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2, 4-Trichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene is 70 ug/l for water and fish consumption.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial3094420121,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceed the National Recommended Water Quality and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   359802012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1683311,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2, 4-Trichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene is 70 ug/l for water and fish consumption.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2955320121,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | Bromobenzene | Cumene | n-Butylbenzene | n-Propylbenzene | sec-Butylbenzene | tert-Butylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Chloroform, Methylene Bromide, Bromochloromethane, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane, 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropane, 2,2-Dichloropropane, and 1,1-Dichloropropene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chloroform, Methylene Bromide, Bromochloromethane, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane, 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropane, 2,2-Dichloropropane, or 1,1-Dichloropropene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chloroform, Methylene Bromide, Bromochloromethane, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane, 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropane, 2,2-Dichloropropane, 1,1-Dichloropropenefor the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298362010State Reviewed 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | Bromobenzene | Cumene | n-Butylbenzene | n-Propylbenzene | sec-Butylbenzene | tert-ButylbenzeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved15 Fifteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 4 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. An extra sample was collected from the International Boundary location in July of 2003. At Even Hewes and Drop 2 samples were collected in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2168820121,2-Dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50382010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Ethylbenzene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved190Nineteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 4 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Nineteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the international Boundary and the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Another sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 7/2003. The rest of the locations were sampled twice in May and october of 2002 The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2168820121,2-Dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   359822012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1683331,2-DichloroethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichloroethane.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-Dichloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 99 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2168820121,2-Dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347642012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675011,2-DichloroethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal110Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichloroethane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-Dichloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 99 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial3213320121,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceed the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   359992012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1683351,2-Dichloroethylene,-transCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-trans-dichlorethylene.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-trans-dichlorethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 140,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial3213320121,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceed the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   348162012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675191,2-Dichloroethylene,-transCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal110Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-trans-dichlorethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-trans-dichlorethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 140,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2168920121,2-Dichloropropane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347852012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675101,2-DichloropropaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal110Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichloropropane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-Dichloropropane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 39 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2168920121,2-Dichloropropane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50382010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Ethylbenzene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved190Nineteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 4 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Nineteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the international Boundary and the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Another sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 7/2003. The rest of the locations were sampled twice in May and october of 2002 The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2168920121,2-Dichloropropane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   359982012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1683341,2-DichloropropaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichloropropane.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-Dichloropropane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 39 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2935020121-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Napthalene, Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, and 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 an d 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Naphthalene, Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Naphthalene, Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300282010State Reviewed 1-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | AcenaphthyleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methylnaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004, in May and October from both sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2935020121-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Napthalene, Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, and 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 an d 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Naphthalene, Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Naphthalene, Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298442010State Reviewed NaphthaleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved13 Thirteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 4 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of Naphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Thirteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. An extra sample was collected from the International Boundary location in July of 2003. At Even Hewes and Drop 2 samples were collected in May of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2935020121-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Napthalene, Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, and 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 an d 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Naphthalene, Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Naphthalene, Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298422010State Reviewed 1-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | AcenaphthyleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2934920121-Methylphenanthrene | Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Phenanthrene, and 1-Methylphenanthrene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300272010State Reviewed 1-MethylphenanthreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004, in May and October from both sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2934920121-Methylphenanthrene | Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Phenanthrene, and 1-Methylphenanthrene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298412010State Reviewed 1-Methylphenanthrene | PhenanthreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2944720122-Chlorotoluene | 4-Chlorotoluene | p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess 2-Chlorotoluene, and 4-Chlorotoluene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, or 4-Chlorotoluene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, or 4-Chlorotoluene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298372010State Reviewed 2-Chlorotoluene | 4-Chlorotoluene | p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved15 Fifteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 4 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. An extra sample was collected from the International Boundary location in July of 2003. At Even Hewes and Drop 2 samples were collected in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial2935920122-Hexanone | Hydroxide | Pheophytin a Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.7.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess 2-Hexanone, Hydroxide, and Pheophytin a consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.7.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Hexanone, Hydroxide, or Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Hexanone, Hydroxide, or Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298662010State Reviewed 2-Hexanone | Hydroxide | Pheophytin aWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved4 Four water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at 4 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Hexanone, Hydroxide, or Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Four water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from all four sampling locations in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial193892012Acenaphthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 5042 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50422010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial293662012Acenaphthene | Dichlorobenzophenone | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Acenaphthene, pp-DCBP, and Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, pp-DCBP, or Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, pp-DCBP, or Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300482010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Dichlorobenzophenone | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, pp-DCBP, or Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004, in May and October from both sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial295862012Acetone | Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) | Methyl isobutyl ketone (Methyl-2-Pentanone) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, and Methyl Ethyl Ketone consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, or Methyl Ethyl Ketone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, or Methyl Ethyl Ketone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298652010State Reviewed Acetone | Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) | Methyl isobutyl ketone (Methyl-2-Pentanone)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved5 Five water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 7/2003 at 4 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, or Methyl Ethyl Ketone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from all four sampling locations in 5/2002. In 7/2003 a sample was collected from the International Boundary only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181382012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence Nos. 36002 and 34791 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was no acceptable samples reported in each line of evidence. LOE Nos. 5029, 2937, 36003, 5251, and 34826 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5569 and 46258 are combined for a use rating determination as well. LOE Nos. 5192 and 4853 are combined for a use rating determination, and these combination, two of two exceedances, was considered for a listing in previous assessment cycle. But the conclusion stated that "This number exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, however, both come from datasets where insufficient infoamtion was provided to support a listing decision." This conclusion for these two LOEs remains same as previous decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 34 water samples exceeded the California Toxic Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Two of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organism from this water. These do exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, however, both come from datasets where insufficient information was provided to support a listing decision. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   51922010State Reviewed AldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal11Fifty-seven water samples were taken at 1 location on the river. Fifty-six water sample results could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration, or in some cases the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 1 acceptable water quality sample was collected on 5/30/1979. This sample exceeded the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 0.00014 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  A sample was collected at the following New River location: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca.Fifty-seven samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Three samples were collected in 1969, 53 samples were collected from 1970-1979, no samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 1 sample was collected from 1990-1999. The exceedence was from a sample collected on 5/30/1979. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181382012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence Nos. 36002 and 34791 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was no acceptable samples reported in each line of evidence. LOE Nos. 5029, 2937, 36003, 5251, and 34826 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5569 and 46258 are combined for a use rating determination as well. LOE Nos. 5192 and 4853 are combined for a use rating determination, and these combination, two of two exceedances, was considered for a listing in previous assessment cycle. But the conclusion stated that "This number exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, however, both come from datasets where insufficient infoamtion was provided to support a listing decision." This conclusion for these two LOEs remains same as previous decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 34 water samples exceeded the California Toxic Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Two of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organism from this water. These do exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, however, both come from datasets where insufficient information was provided to support a listing decision. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   52512010State Reviewed AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Fifty-seven samples were taken at 1 location on the river. Fifty-five water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 2 acceptable water quality samples were collected on 5/30/1979 and 4/02/1992. These samples did not exceed the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) 3 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following New River location: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca.Fifty-seven samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Three samples were collected in 1969, 53 samples were collected from 1970-1979, no samples were collected from 1980-1989, 1 sample was collected from 1990-1992. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181382012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence Nos. 36002 and 34791 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was no acceptable samples reported in each line of evidence. LOE Nos. 5029, 2937, 36003, 5251, and 34826 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5569 and 46258 are combined for a use rating determination as well. LOE Nos. 5192 and 4853 are combined for a use rating determination, and these combination, two of two exceedances, was considered for a listing in previous assessment cycle. But the conclusion stated that "This number exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, however, both come from datasets where insufficient infoamtion was provided to support a listing decision." This conclusion for these two LOEs remains same as previous decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 34 water samples exceeded the California Toxic Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Two of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organism from this water. These do exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, however, both come from datasets where insufficient information was provided to support a listing decision. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   347912012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167546AldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twelve samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Aldrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181382012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence Nos. 36002 and 34791 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was no acceptable samples reported in each line of evidence. LOE Nos. 5029, 2937, 36003, 5251, and 34826 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5569 and 46258 are combined for a use rating determination as well. LOE Nos. 5192 and 4853 are combined for a use rating determination, and these combination, two of two exceedances, was considered for a listing in previous assessment cycle. But the conclusion stated that "This number exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, however, both come from datasets where insufficient infoamtion was provided to support a listing decision." This conclusion for these two LOEs remains same as previous decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 34 water samples exceeded the California Toxic Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Two of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organism from this water. These do exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, however, both come from datasets where insufficient information was provided to support a listing decision. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   348262012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167560AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Aldrin criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 3 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181382012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence Nos. 36002 and 34791 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was no acceptable samples reported in each line of evidence. LOE Nos. 5029, 2937, 36003, 5251, and 34826 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5569 and 46258 are combined for a use rating determination as well. LOE Nos. 5192 and 4853 are combined for a use rating determination, and these combination, two of two exceedances, was considered for a listing in previous assessment cycle. But the conclusion stated that "This number exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, however, both come from datasets where insufficient infoamtion was provided to support a listing decision." This conclusion for these two LOEs remains same as previous decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 34 water samples exceeded the California Toxic Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Two of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organism from this water. These do exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, however, both come from datasets where insufficient information was provided to support a listing decision. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   360022012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168338AldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Two samples were collected but not used in the assessment because the laboratory method detection limit was above the objective, therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Aldrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181382012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence Nos. 36002 and 34791 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was no acceptable samples reported in each line of evidence. LOE Nos. 5029, 2937, 36003, 5251, and 34826 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5569 and 46258 are combined for a use rating determination as well. LOE Nos. 5192 and 4853 are combined for a use rating determination, and these combination, two of two exceedances, was considered for a listing in previous assessment cycle. But the conclusion stated that "This number exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, however, both come from datasets where insufficient infoamtion was provided to support a listing decision." This conclusion for these two LOEs remains same as previous decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 34 water samples exceeded the California Toxic Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Two of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organism from this water. These do exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, however, both come from datasets where insufficient information was provided to support a listing decision. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   360032012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168339AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Aldrin criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 3 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181382012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence Nos. 36002 and 34791 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was no acceptable samples reported in each line of evidence. LOE Nos. 5029, 2937, 36003, 5251, and 34826 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5569 and 46258 are combined for a use rating determination as well. LOE Nos. 5192 and 4853 are combined for a use rating determination, and these combination, two of two exceedances, was considered for a listing in previous assessment cycle. But the conclusion stated that "This number exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, however, both come from datasets where insufficient infoamtion was provided to support a listing decision." This conclusion for these two LOEs remains same as previous decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 34 water samples exceeded the California Toxic Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Two of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organism from this water. These do exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, however, both come from datasets where insufficient information was provided to support a listing decision. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   462582012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671453AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. One composite (3 fish per composite) were generated from one species: channel catfish.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 11/5/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181382012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence Nos. 36002 and 34791 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was no acceptable samples reported in each line of evidence. LOE Nos. 5029, 2937, 36003, 5251, and 34826 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5569 and 46258 are combined for a use rating determination as well. LOE Nos. 5192 and 4853 are combined for a use rating determination, and these combination, two of two exceedances, was considered for a listing in previous assessment cycle. But the conclusion stated that "This number exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, however, both come from datasets where insufficient infoamtion was provided to support a listing decision." This conclusion for these two LOEs remains same as previous decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 34 water samples exceeded the California Toxic Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Two of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organism from this water. These do exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, however, both come from datasets where insufficient information was provided to support a listing decision. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   50292010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181382012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence Nos. 36002 and 34791 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was no acceptable samples reported in each line of evidence. LOE Nos. 5029, 2937, 36003, 5251, and 34826 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5569 and 46258 are combined for a use rating determination as well. LOE Nos. 5192 and 4853 are combined for a use rating determination, and these combination, two of two exceedances, was considered for a listing in previous assessment cycle. But the conclusion stated that "This number exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, however, both come from datasets where insufficient infoamtion was provided to support a listing decision." This conclusion for these two LOEs remains same as previous decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 34 water samples exceeded the California Toxic Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Two of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organism from this water. These do exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, however, both come from datasets where insufficient information was provided to support a listing decision. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   48532010State Reviewed AldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved11Fourteen water samples were taken at two locations on the river. Thirteen water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water sample, collected near the outlet to the Salton Sea location on 5/06/2002, exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.00014 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The exceedence was found in a sample collected on 5/06/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181382012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence Nos. 36002 and 34791 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was no acceptable samples reported in each line of evidence. LOE Nos. 5029, 2937, 36003, 5251, and 34826 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5569 and 46258 are combined for a use rating determination as well. LOE Nos. 5192 and 4853 are combined for a use rating determination, and these combination, two of two exceedances, was considered for a listing in previous assessment cycle. But the conclusion stated that "This number exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, however, both come from datasets where insufficient infoamtion was provided to support a listing decision." This conclusion for these two LOEs remains same as previous decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 34 water samples exceeded the California Toxic Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Two of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organism from this water. These do exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, however, both come from datasets where insufficient information was provided to support a listing decision. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   29372006State Reviewed AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone40Data were collected by the RWQCB at four locations on the New River in 2003. Of the 4 samples, all samples were non-detects with a detection limit of 0.0096 ppb. Therefore, there were no exceedances (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCalifornia Toxics Rule: freshwater acute maximum = 3 ppb.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Data were collected at four locations on the New River, from the international boundary to the outlet to the Salton Sea.Samples were collected on 4/17/2003. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181382012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence Nos. 36002 and 34791 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was no acceptable samples reported in each line of evidence. LOE Nos. 5029, 2937, 36003, 5251, and 34826 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE No. 5569 and 46258 are combined for a use rating determination as well. LOE Nos. 5192 and 4853 are combined for a use rating determination, and these combination, two of two exceedances, was considered for a listing in previous assessment cycle. But the conclusion stated that "This number exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, however, both come from datasets where insufficient infoamtion was provided to support a listing decision." This conclusion for these two LOEs remains same as previous decision. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 34 water samples exceeded the California Toxic Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Two of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organism from this water. These do exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, however, both come from datasets where insufficient information was provided to support a listing decision. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   55692010State Reviewed AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal420Forty-one fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 2 locations in the river. Four fish fillet samples could not be used in this assessment because the constituent was not analyzed in the sample. The 37 fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following New River locations: near the International Boundary, and near Westmorland, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Forty-one fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp, flathead catfish, tilapia, spiny soft shelled turtle, and yellow bullhead were collected. Fifteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1979, (4)1980, 1981, (2)1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1991, 1995 and 1997-98. Five channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1988, 1990, 1992-93. Ten carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-86, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994. Five carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1989, 1994, 1997, and 1999. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1996. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1991-92. One spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. Five whole fish samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia and sailfin molly & mosquitofish were collected. Three red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1980. One tilapia single whole fish sample was collected in the year 1984. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial295822012Aldrin | Chlorpyrifos | Diazinon | Toxaphene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, and Toxaphene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300472010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlorpyrifos | Diazinon | ToxapheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004, in May and October from both sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial299662012Aluminum | Manganese | Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Aluminum, Manganese, and Silver consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300432010State Reviewed Aluminum | Manganese | SilverWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004, in May and October from both sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial293642012Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn | Terbutryn Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29857 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline was available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Prometryn is available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water sample exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometryn. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   298572010State Reviewed Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn | TerbutrynWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved8 Eight water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for dissolved fractions of Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, or Terbutryn for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Samples were not collected from the two locations in November of 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial293642012Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn | Terbutryn Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29857 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline was available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Prometryn is available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water sample exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometryn. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355412012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168106PrometrynWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Prometryn.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometryn is 1 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial216402012Anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of eight sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328022012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21802AnthraceneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80None of the 8 samples collected for Anthracene (sum of c0-c4) exceed the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for anthracene in freshwater sediments is 845 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following stations: New River at Boundary (723NRBDRY) and New River Outlet (723NROTWM).The samples were collected on 10/25/2005-4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial216402012Anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of eight sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50422010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial295712012Anthracene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, and Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300392010State Reviewed Anthracene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Dibenz[a,h]anthraceneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004, in May and October from both sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183552012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos, 5319, 35200, 35471 and 5107 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5254 and 5026, LOE Nos. 5047 and 5277, and LOE Nos. 35241 and 2920 are combined for a use rating determination for each group. One fish tissue sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 125 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. One of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   53192010State Reviewed ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal30Three sediment quality samples were taken at 3 locations along the river. The samples were generally collected from 11/1973 through 4/2003. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 33 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following New River location: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca., USGS Station No. 330559115385601 at Lack Road near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254970 near the International Boundary in Calexico, Ca.Three samples were collected. One sample was collected on 11/07/1973, another sample was collected on 10/24/01, and another sample was collected 4/14/03. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183552012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos, 5319, 35200, 35471 and 5107 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5254 and 5026, LOE Nos. 5047 and 5277, and LOE Nos. 35241 and 2920 are combined for a use rating determination for each group. One fish tissue sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 125 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. One of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54252010State Reviewed ArsenicCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal121Twenty-nine fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples were taken at 2 locations in the river. Twenty fish fillet and 1 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the constituent was not analyzed in the samples. The 9 fish fillet and 3 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/1998 at two locations. Of these total samples, one whole fish sample collected at one location exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value. At the Westmorland location an exceedence was found in 1 red swamp crayfish whole fish composite sample collected on 5/09/1990 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 1 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following New River locations: near the International Boundary, and near Westmorland, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty nine fish fillet samples of carp, tilapia, grass carp, spiny soft shelled turtle, channel catfish, and yellow bullhead were collected. Six carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1982, 1986, 1990-91, and 1993-94. Four carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, 1994, 1997, and 1999. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1996. One grass carp fillet composite sample was collected the year 1987. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1991-1992. One spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet samples was collected in the year 1987. Nine channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1979-80, (2)1982, 1987, 1991, 1995, and 1997-98. Four channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1990, and 1992-93. One yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. Four whole fish composite samples of red swamp crayfish, and sailfin molly & mosquitofish were collected. Three red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1978-80. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite samples was collected in the year 1985. An exceedance was found in a sample collected on 5/08/1980. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183552012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos, 5319, 35200, 35471 and 5107 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5254 and 5026, LOE Nos. 5047 and 5277, and LOE Nos. 35241 and 2920 are combined for a use rating determination for each group. One fish tissue sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 125 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. One of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352412012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167580ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe dissolved arsenic criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for dissolved arsenic is 0.150 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183552012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos, 5319, 35200, 35471 and 5107 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5254 and 5026, LOE Nos. 5047 and 5277, and LOE Nos. 35241 and 2920 are combined for a use rating determination for each group. One fish tissue sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 125 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. One of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354712012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168282ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for arsenic is 33 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183552012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos, 5319, 35200, 35471 and 5107 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5254 and 5026, LOE Nos. 5047 and 5277, and LOE Nos. 35241 and 2920 are combined for a use rating determination for each group. One fish tissue sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 125 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. One of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462592012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671454ArsenicCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. One composite (3 fish per composite) were generated from one species: channel catfish. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for arsenic in fish tissue is 0.0034 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. It is assumed that 10% of the total arsenic is present as inorganic arsenic. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 11/5/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183552012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos, 5319, 35200, 35471 and 5107 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5254 and 5026, LOE Nos. 5047 and 5277, and LOE Nos. 35241 and 2920 are combined for a use rating determination for each group. One fish tissue sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 125 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. One of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52772010State Reviewed ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved650Sixty-nine water samples were taken at 3 locations on the river. Four water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 65 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 2/1973 through 8/1998. Of these total samples, none exceed the USFWS Biological Effects Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effects Criteria of 0.25 mg/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (USDOI, 1998).1.Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.Samples were collected at the following New River locations: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca., and USGS Station No. 10254970 near the International Boundary in Calexico, Ca.Sixty-nine samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 2/1973 through 8/1989. Twenty-nine samples were collected from 1970-1979, and 40 samples were collected from 1980-1989. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183552012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos, 5319, 35200, 35471 and 5107 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5254 and 5026, LOE Nos. 5047 and 5277, and LOE Nos. 35241 and 2920 are combined for a use rating determination for each group. One fish tissue sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 125 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. One of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52542010State Reviewed ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved650Sixty-nine samples were taken at 3 locations on the river. Four water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 65 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 2/1973 through 8/1998. Of these total samples, none exceed the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) 340 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following New River locations: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca., and USGS Station No. 10254970 near the International Boundary in Calexico, Ca.Sixty-nine samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 2/1973 through 8/1989. Twenty-nine samples were collected from 1973-1979, and 40 samples were collected from 1980-1989. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183552012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos, 5319, 35200, 35471 and 5107 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5254 and 5026, LOE Nos. 5047 and 5277, and LOE Nos. 35241 and 2920 are combined for a use rating determination for each group. One fish tissue sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 125 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. One of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51072010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183552012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos, 5319, 35200, 35471 and 5107 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5254 and 5026, LOE Nos. 5047 and 5277, and LOE Nos. 35241 and 2920 are combined for a use rating determination for each group. One fish tissue sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 125 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. One of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50472010State Reviewed ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved150Fifteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effects Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effects Criteria of 0.25 mg/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (USDOI, 1998).1.Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Another sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 7/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183552012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos, 5319, 35200, 35471 and 5107 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5254 and 5026, LOE Nos. 5047 and 5277, and LOE Nos. 35241 and 2920 are combined for a use rating determination for each group. One fish tissue sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 125 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. One of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50262010State Reviewed Arsenic | Chromium (total)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved150Fifteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 340 ug/l Arsenic, and 1724 ug/l Chromium (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Another sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 7/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183552012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos, 5319, 35200, 35471 and 5107 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5254 and 5026, LOE Nos. 5047 and 5277, and LOE Nos. 35241 and 2920 are combined for a use rating determination for each group. One fish tissue sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 125 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. One of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   29202006State Reviewed ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone1130All samples were collected on the New River. Samples were collected by the RWQCB from June 1995 through December 2003. None of these 98 samples were in exceedance. Samples were also collected by the RWQCB at 3 locations from 6/11/1996 through 12/4/1996. None of these 6 samples were in exceedance. Samples were also collected by the RWQCB from 10/31/1999 through 11/6/1999. None of these 9 samples were in exceedance (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUSEPA: freshwater acute maximum = 340 ppb, freshwater chronic maximum as a 4-day average = 150 ppb.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected on the New River at the International Boundary. The 6 samples were collected on the New River at the International Boundary, at the International Drain, and at Puente Madero.The 98 samples were collected monthly from June 1995 to December 2003. The 6 samples were collected on 6 days from 6/11/1996 to 12/4/1996, and the 9 samples were collected monthly from 10/31/1999 to 11/6/1999.For the 98 samples, temperature, pH, D.O., and conductivity were also measured.Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183552012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Twelve lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos, 5319, 35200, 35471 and 5107 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5254 and 5026, LOE Nos. 5047 and 5277, and LOE Nos. 35241 and 2920 are combined for a use rating determination for each group. One fish tissue sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 125 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. One of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352002012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167573ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for arsenic is 33 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309532012Atrazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352672012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167590AtrazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Atrazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Atrazine is 43 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial301362012Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | Secbumeton Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29858 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment because no evaluation guidelines were avaialble for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Prometon is avaialble in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water sample exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353682012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168098Prometon (Prometone)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Prometon.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon is 98 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial301362012Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | Secbumeton Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29858 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment because no evaluation guidelines were avaialble for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Prometon is avaialble in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water sample exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   298582010State Reviewed Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | SecbumetonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved8 Eight water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for dissolved fractions of Atroton, Prometon, or Secbumeton for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Samples were not collected from the two locations in November of 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial295662012Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29851 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. An evaluation guideline for Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) is available in current assessment cycle, but none of data were accepted to determine if water quality objective is met.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twelve samples were collected for Azinphos-methyl (Guthion), but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   298512010State Reviewed Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Azinphos, methyl, or Azinphos, ethyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial295662012Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29851 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. An evaluation guideline for Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) is available in current assessment cycle, but none of data were accepted to determine if water quality objective is met.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twelve samples were collected for Azinphos-methyl (Guthion), but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353092012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167599Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twelve samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Azinphos Methyl (Guthion) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is a maximum of 0.01 ug/l.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial213652012Benzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 29 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353532012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167610BenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal110Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceed the criterion for Benzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Benzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 71 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial213652012Benzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 29 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50412010State Reviewed 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzene | Carbon tetrachlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved160Sixteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 4 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, and 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Nineteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Another sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 7/2003. The rest of the locations were sampled twice in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial213652012Benzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 29 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   360042012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168340BenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Benzene.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Benzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 71 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial216522012Benzo(a)anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5107 and 35332 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceed the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51072010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial216522012Benzo(a)anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5107 and 35332 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceed the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50442010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Twelve water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Twelve water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples wre not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial216522012Benzo(a)anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5107 and 35332 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceed the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353322012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167606Benzo(a)anthraceneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Benz(a)anthracene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Benzo(a)anthracene is 1050 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial221282012Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three LOEs for sediment are combined for a use rating determiantion. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351822012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167622Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Benzo(a)pyrene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Benzo(a)Pyrene is 1450 ug/Kg dry weight (Macdonald et al. 2000)1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial221282012Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three LOEs for sediment are combined for a use rating determiantion. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   53252010State Reviewed Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentNot Recorded10One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the river, collected on 7/11/1986. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 1,450 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following New River location: USGS Station No. 10254970 near the International Boundary in Calexico, Ca.One sample was collected on 7/11/1986. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial221282012Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three LOEs for sediment are combined for a use rating determiantion. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49132010State Reviewed Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) of 1450 ug/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial221282012Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three LOEs for sediment are combined for a use rating determiantion. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50442010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Twelve water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Twelve water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples wre not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial293542012Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | Terbufos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, and Terbufos consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298562010State Reviewed Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | TerbufosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial293542012Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | Terbufos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, and Terbufos consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300342010State Reviewed Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | BiphenylWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004, in May and October from both sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial213372012Benzo[b]fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 5044 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50442010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Twelve water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Twelve water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples wre not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial294222012Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, and Benzo(k)Fluoranthene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300402010State Reviewed Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluorantheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004, in May and October from both sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial216192012Benzo[k]fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 5044 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50442010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Twelve water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Twelve water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples wre not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial293622012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29854 and 30031 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Dacthal, Dichlorvos, and Dimethoate are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceed the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal, and none of 12 water samples exceed the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Dichlorvos. None of 12 water samples exceed the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dimethoate and these sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352592012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167743DichlorvosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Dichlorvos.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Dichlorvos is 7.2 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial293622012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29854 and 30031 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Dacthal, Dichlorvos, and Dimethoate are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceed the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal, and none of 12 water samples exceed the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Dichlorvos. None of 12 water samples exceed the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dimethoate and these sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350112012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167776DimethoateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Dimethoate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dimethoate is 43 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial293622012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29854 and 30031 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Dacthal, Dichlorvos, and Dimethoate are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceed the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal, and none of 12 water samples exceed the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Dichlorvos. None of 12 water samples exceed the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dimethoate and these sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350062012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167722DacthalWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Dacthal.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal 6600 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial293622012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29854 and 30031 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Dacthal, Dichlorvos, and Dimethoate are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceed the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal, and none of 12 water samples exceed the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Dichlorvos. None of 12 water samples exceed the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dimethoate and these sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   300312010State Reviewed Dacthal | Mirex | OxadiazonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Dacthal, Mirex, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004, in May and October from both sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial293622012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29854 and 30031 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Dacthal, Dichlorvos, and Dimethoate are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceed the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal, and none of 12 water samples exceed the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Dichlorvos. None of 12 water samples exceed the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dimethoate and these sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   298542010State Reviewed Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | OxadiazonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxodiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial293622012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29854 and 30031 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Dacthal, Dichlorvos, and Dimethoate are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceed the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal, and none of 12 water samples exceed the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Dichlorvos. None of 12 water samples exceed the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dimethoate and these sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   360272012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168346DacthalWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Dacthal.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for dacthal is 6600 ug/L1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214582012Bromoform Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352032012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167628BromoformCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal110Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceed the criterion for Bromoform.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Bromoform criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 360 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214582012Bromoform Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50382010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Ethylbenzene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved190Nineteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 4 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Nineteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the international Boundary and the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Another sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 7/2003. The rest of the locations were sampled twice in May and october of 2002 The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214582012Bromoform Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   360232012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168342BromoformCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Bromoform.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Bromoform criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 360 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial198062012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5321, 35250, 35484 and 5107 are combined for a use rating determiantion. LOE Nos. 2921 and 32835 are combined for a use rating determination as well. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 125 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 27 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   29212006State Reviewed CadmiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal1130All samples were collected on the New River. Samples were collected by the RWQCB from June 1995 through December 2003. None of these 98 samples were in exceedance. Samples were also collected by the RWQCB at 3 locations from 6/11/1996 through 12/4/1996. None of these 6 samples were in exceedance. Samples were also collected by the RWQCB from 10/31/1999 through 11/6/1999. None of these 9 samples were in exceedance (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCTR: freshwater acute maximum based on hardness, and freshwater chronic maximum as a 4-day average based on hardness.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected on the New River at the International Boundary. The 6 samples were collected on the New River at the International Boundary, at the International Drain, and at Puente Madero.The 98 samples were collected monthly from June 1995 to December 2003. The 6 samples were collected on 6 days from 6/11/1996 to 12/4/1996, and the 9 samples were collected monthly from 10/31/1999 to 11/6/1999.For the 98 samples, temperature, pH, D.O., and conductivity were also measured.Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial198062012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5321, 35250, 35484 and 5107 are combined for a use rating determiantion. LOE Nos. 2921 and 32835 are combined for a use rating determination as well. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 125 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 27 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50322010State Reviewed CadmiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved150Fifteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Another sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 7/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial198062012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5321, 35250, 35484 and 5107 are combined for a use rating determiantion. LOE Nos. 2921 and 32835 are combined for a use rating determination as well. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 125 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 27 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51072010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial198062012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5321, 35250, 35484 and 5107 are combined for a use rating determiantion. LOE Nos. 2921 and 32835 are combined for a use rating determination as well. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 125 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 27 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   53212010State Reviewed CadmiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal20Three sediment samples taken at 3 locations on the river. One sediment sample result could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 2 acceptable sediment quality samples were collected from 10/2001 through 4/2003. Neither sample exceeded the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 4.98 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following New River locations: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca., USGS Station No. 330559115385601 at Lack Road near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254970 near the International Boundary in Calexico, Ca.Three samples were collected. One sample was collected on 11/07/1973, another sample was collected on 10/24/01, and another sample was collected 4/14/03. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial198062012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5321, 35250, 35484 and 5107 are combined for a use rating determiantion. LOE Nos. 2921 and 32835 are combined for a use rating determination as well. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 125 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 27 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54942010State Reviewed CadmiumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal110Twenty-nine fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples were taken at 2 locations in the river. Twenty-one fish fillet and 1 whole fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the constituent was not analyzed in the samples. The 8 fish fillet and 3 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 6/1978 through 11/1998 at two locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 3 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following New River locations: near the International Boundary, and near Westmorland, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Twenty nine fish fillet samples of carp, tilapia, grass carp, spiny soft shelled turtle, channel catfish, and yellow bullhead were collected. Six carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1982, 1986, 1990-91, and 1993-94. Four carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1989, 1994, 1997, and 1999. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1996. One grass carp fillet composite sample was collected the year 1987. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1991-1992. One spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet samples was collected in the year 1987. Nine channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1979-80, (2)1982, 1987, 1991, 1995, and 1997-98. Four channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1990, and 1992-93. One yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. Four whole fish composite samples of red swamp crayfish, and sailfin molly & mosquitofish were collected. Three red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1978-80. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite samples was collected in the year 1985. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial198062012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5321, 35250, 35484 and 5107 are combined for a use rating determiantion. LOE Nos. 2921 and 32835 are combined for a use rating determination as well. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 125 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 27 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328352012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21891CadmiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved120None of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for cadmium.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 723NRBDRY (New River at Boundary) and 723NROTWM (New River Outlet).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial198062012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5321, 35250, 35484 and 5107 are combined for a use rating determiantion. LOE Nos. 2921 and 32835 are combined for a use rating determination as well. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 125 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 27 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352502012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167643CadmiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for cadmium is 4.98 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial198062012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5321, 35250, 35484 and 5107 are combined for a use rating determiantion. LOE Nos. 2921 and 32835 are combined for a use rating determination as well. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 125 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 27 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354842012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168285CadmiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for cadmium is 4.98 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial198062012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5321, 35250, 35484 and 5107 are combined for a use rating determiantion. LOE Nos. 2921 and 32835 are combined for a use rating determination as well. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 125 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 12 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 27 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671455CadmiumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. One composite (3 fish per composite) were generated from one species: channel catfish.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for cadmium in fish tissue is 2.2 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 11/5/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial293672012Carbon (organic) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess organic Carbon consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300492010State Reviewed Carbon (organic)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004, in May and October from both sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial213662012Carbon tetrachloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 29 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352702012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167647Carbon tetrachlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal110Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceed the criterion for Carbon tetrachloride.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Carbon tetrachloride criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 4.4 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial213662012Carbon tetrachloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 29 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   360242012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168343Carbon tetrachlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Carbon tetrachloride.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Carbon tetrachloride criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 4.4 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial213662012Carbon tetrachloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 29 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50412010State Reviewed 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride | Benzene | Carbon tetrachlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved160Sixteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 4 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 71 ug/l Benzene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, and 3.2 ug/l 1,1-Dichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Nineteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Another sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 7/2003. The rest of the locations were sampled twice in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial295642012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, and Tokuthion consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion or the sediment fractions of Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion or the sediment fractions of Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300292010State Reviewed Methyl Parathion | ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004, in May and October from both sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial295642012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, and Tokuthion consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion or the sediment fractions of Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion or the sediment fractions of Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298452010State Reviewed Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | TokuthionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial293512012Chlorfenvinphos | Chlorpyrifos, methyl | Cuomaphos | Dicrotophos | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | Fenchlorphos | Leptophos | Merphos | Mevinphos | Tetrachlorvinphos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, and Chlorpyrifos Methyl consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298522010State Reviewed Chlorfenvinphos | Chlorpyrifos, methyl | Cuomaphos | Dicrotophos | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | Fenchlorphos | Leptophos | Merphos | Mevinphos | TetrachlorvinphosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial216332012Chlorobenzene (mono) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the Calilfornia Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   360252012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168344Chlorobenzene (mono)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorobenzene.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Chlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 21,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial216332012Chlorobenzene (mono) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the Calilfornia Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50382010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Ethylbenzene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved190Nineteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 4 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Nineteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the international Boundary and the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Another sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 7/2003. The rest of the locations were sampled twice in May and october of 2002 The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial216332012Chlorobenzene (mono) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the Calilfornia Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352952012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167656Chlorobenzene (mono)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal110Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Chlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 21,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309582012Chlorodibromomethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   360282012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168347ChlorodibromomethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Dibromochloromethane.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Dibromochloromethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 34 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial184212012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determiantion: LOE Nos. 35487, 35231, 5107, and 5247; LOE Nos. 5026, 2928, and 5260. One sediment sample exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 157 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. One of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52472010State Reviewed Chromium (total)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal31Three sediment quality samples were taken at 3 locations in the river, collected between 10/2001 and 4/2003. Out of these total samples, 1 exceeded the PEC Criteria. The exceedence was found in a sample collected on 4/16/2003 from near the International Boundary in Calexico, CA (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 111 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following New River location: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca., USGS Station No. 330559115385601 at Lack Road near Calipatria, Ca, USGS Station No. 10254970 near the International Boundary in Calexico, Ca.Three samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 10/2001 through 4/2003. One sample was collected in 2001, no samples were collected in 2002, and 2 samples were collected in 2003. The exceedence was found in a sample collected on 4/16/2003. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial184212012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determiantion: LOE Nos. 35487, 35231, 5107, and 5247; LOE Nos. 5026, 2928, and 5260. One sediment sample exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 157 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. One of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52602010State Reviewed Chromium (total)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved290Fifty-two samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Twenty-three water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 29 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 2/1973 through 5/1984. Of these total samples, none exceed the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) 1,724 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following New River locations: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca., and USGS Station No. 10254970 near the International Boundary in Calexico, Ca.Fifty-two samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 2/1973 through 2/1985. Twenty-seven samples were collected from 1973-1979, and 25 samples were collected from 1980-1985. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial184212012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determiantion: LOE Nos. 35487, 35231, 5107, and 5247; LOE Nos. 5026, 2928, and 5260. One sediment sample exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 157 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. One of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   339252012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25783ChromiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120None of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for chromium III or the criteria for chromium VI.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each chromium III sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. The criterion continuous concentration (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for chromium VI is 11 ug/L and is not hardness dependent.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 723NRBDRY (New River at Boundary) and 723NROTWM (New River Outlet).Samples collected between 10/25/05 and 10/28/08. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial184212012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determiantion: LOE Nos. 35487, 35231, 5107, and 5247; LOE Nos. 5026, 2928, and 5260. One sediment sample exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 157 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. One of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354872012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168288ChromiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chromium.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for chromium is 111 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial184212012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determiantion: LOE Nos. 35487, 35231, 5107, and 5247; LOE Nos. 5026, 2928, and 5260. One sediment sample exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 157 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. One of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   29282006State Reviewed Chromium (total)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal1130Samples were collected by the RWQCB from June 1995 through December 2003. Of the 98 monthly samples, 0 were in exceedance of the chronic criteria. Samples were also collected by the RWQCB from 10/31/99 through 11/6/99 on. None of the 9 samples were in exceedance. Samples were also collected at three locations from 6/11/96 through 12/4/96. None of the 6 samples were in exceedance (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedUSEPA: freshwater chronic maximum as a 4-day average based on hardness and freshwater acute maximum = 1724 ppb.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  All samples, but the 6 samples were collected on the New River at the International Boundary. The 6 samples were collected on the New River at the International Boundary, at the International Drain, and at Puente Madero.The 98 samples were collected monthly from June 1995 through December 2003. The 9 samples were collected monthly from 10/31/99 through 11/6/99. The 6 samples were collected on six days from 6/11/96 to 12/4/96.For the 98 samples, temperature, pH, D.O., and conductivity were also measured.Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial184212012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determiantion: LOE Nos. 35487, 35231, 5107, and 5247; LOE Nos. 5026, 2928, and 5260. One sediment sample exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 157 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. One of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50262010State Reviewed Arsenic | Chromium (total)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved150Fifteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 340 ug/l Arsenic, and 1724 ug/l Chromium (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Another sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 7/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial184212012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determiantion: LOE Nos. 35487, 35231, 5107, and 5247; LOE Nos. 5026, 2928, and 5260. One sediment sample exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 157 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. One of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51072010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial184212012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determiantion: LOE Nos. 35487, 35231, 5107, and 5247; LOE Nos. 5026, 2928, and 5260. One sediment sample exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 157 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. One of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352312012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167686ChromiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Chromium.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for chromium is 111 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214922012Chrysene (C1-C4) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded sediment guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   53262010State Reviewed Chrysene (C1-C4)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentNot Recorded10One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the river, collected on 7/11/1986. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 1,290 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following New River location: USGS Station No. 10254970 near the International Boundary in Calexico, Ca.One sample was collected on 7/11/1986. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214922012Chrysene (C1-C4) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded sediment guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328702012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21825Chrysene (C1-C4)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Zero of 8 samples collected for Chrysene (Sum of c0-c3) exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Chrysene in freshwater sediments is 1290 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY, New River Outlet - 723NROTWM.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214922012Chrysene (C1-C4) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded sediment guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51072010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214922012Chrysene (C1-C4) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded sediment guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50442010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Twelve water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Twelve water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples wre not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309592012Cyanazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353222012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167712CyanazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Cyanazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Cyanazine is 4.8 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY, New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183432012Cyanide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE Nos. 5046 and 5035 are changed from insufficient information to fully supporting because those LOEs are combined in the final use rating with other LOEs, which were assessed based on the same water quality objective for the same beneficial uses. Those combined sample size meet the required minimum of 16 for application of table 3.1.No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 5046 and 5035 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The results of Line of Evidence No. 5046 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence No. 5267 in the Final Use Rating. The results of Line of Evidence No. 5035 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence Nos. 5240 and 2923 in the Final Use Rating. One of the samples was in exceedance of the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 129 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 16 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   52402010State Reviewed CyanideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal150Nineteen samples were taken at 1 location on the river. Four water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 15 acceptable water quality samples were collected from 5/1977 through 9/1979. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 22 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following New River location: USGS Station No. 10254970 located near International Boundary in Calexico, Ca.Nineteen samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 5/1977 through 9/1979. Three samples were collected in 1977, 10 samples were collected in 1978, and 6 samples were collected in 1979. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183432012Cyanide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE Nos. 5046 and 5035 are changed from insufficient information to fully supporting because those LOEs are combined in the final use rating with other LOEs, which were assessed based on the same water quality objective for the same beneficial uses. Those combined sample size meet the required minimum of 16 for application of table 3.1.No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 5046 and 5035 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The results of Line of Evidence No. 5046 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence No. 5267 in the Final Use Rating. The results of Line of Evidence No. 5035 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence Nos. 5240 and 2923 in the Final Use Rating. One of the samples was in exceedance of the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 129 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 16 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   52672010State Reviewed CyanideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal150Nineteen water samples were taken at 1 location on the river. Four water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 15 acceptable water quality samples were collected from 5/1977 through 9/1979. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion of 220,000 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following New River location: USGS Station No. 10254970 located near International Boundary in Calexico, Ca.Nineteen samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 5/1977 through 9/1979. Three samples were collected in 1977, 10 samples were collected in 1978, and 6 samples were collected in 1979. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183432012Cyanide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE Nos. 5046 and 5035 are changed from insufficient information to fully supporting because those LOEs are combined in the final use rating with other LOEs, which were assessed based on the same water quality objective for the same beneficial uses. Those combined sample size meet the required minimum of 16 for application of table 3.1.No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 5046 and 5035 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The results of Line of Evidence No. 5046 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence No. 5267 in the Final Use Rating. The results of Line of Evidence No. 5035 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence Nos. 5240 and 2923 in the Final Use Rating. One of the samples was in exceedance of the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 129 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 16 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   29232006State Reviewed CyanideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal1131Samples were collected by the RWQCB from June 1995 to December 2003 on the New River at the International Boundary. Of the 98 monthly samples, 1 was in exceedance of the chronic criteria and 1 was in exceedance of the acute criteria. Samples were also collected by the RWQCB at three locations on the New River from 6/11/1996 to 12/4/1996. None of the 6 samples were in exceedance. Samples were also collected by the RWQCB from 10/31/1999 to 11/6/1999 on the New River. None of these 9 samples were in exceedance (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCTR: freshwater chronic maximum as a 4-day average = 5.2 ppb and freshwater acute maximum = 22 ppb.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected on the New River at the International Boundary. For the 6 samples, they were collected on the New River at the International Boundary, and at both the International Drain and Puente Madero.The 98 samples were collected monthly from June 1995 to December 2003. The 6 samples were collected on 6 days from 6/11/1996 to 12/4/1996, and the 9 samples were collected monthly from 10/31/1999 to 11/6/1999.For the 98 samples, temperature, pH, D.O., and conductivity were also measured.Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183432012Cyanide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE Nos. 5046 and 5035 are changed from insufficient information to fully supporting because those LOEs are combined in the final use rating with other LOEs, which were assessed based on the same water quality objective for the same beneficial uses. Those combined sample size meet the required minimum of 16 for application of table 3.1.No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 5046 and 5035 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The results of Line of Evidence No. 5046 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence No. 5267 in the Final Use Rating. The results of Line of Evidence No. 5035 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence Nos. 5240 and 2923 in the Final Use Rating. One of the samples was in exceedance of the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 129 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 16 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50352010State Reviewed CyanideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10One water quality sample was collected and analyzed biannually in 7/2003 at 1 location along the New River. This sample did not exceed the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 22 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Sample was collected from the New River at the International Boundary.One water sample was collected. A water sample was collected and analyzed in 7/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183432012Cyanide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE Nos. 5046 and 5035 are changed from insufficient information to fully supporting because those LOEs are combined in the final use rating with other LOEs, which were assessed based on the same water quality objective for the same beneficial uses. Those combined sample size meet the required minimum of 16 for application of table 3.1.No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Line of Evidence No. 5046 and 5035 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in each line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The results of Line of Evidence No. 5046 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence No. 5267 in the Final Use Rating. The results of Line of Evidence No. 5035 will be combined with the results from Line of Evidence Nos. 5240 and 2923 in the Final Use Rating. One of the samples was in exceedance of the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 129 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 16 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50462010State Reviewed CyanideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10One water quality sample was collected and analyzed in 7/2003 at 1 location along the New River. This sample did not exceed the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 220000 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Sample was collected from the New River at the International Boundary.One water sample was collected. A water sample was collected and analyzed in 7/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309472012Cyfluthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two water samples and one sediment sample exceed the water quality objective. Those two water sample exceedances were occurred on a single day, May 1, 2006, and the data is not temporally independent to be used in the assessment based on the section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy. So the LOE No. 46374 received a use rating of insufficient information.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used is not satified the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of two water samples exceed the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, these two exceedances occurred on a single day, and the data is not temporally independent. According to Section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy, "If the majority of samples were collected on a single day, the data shall not be used as the primary data set supporting the listing decision." Thus, these two water sample exceedances were not used as supporting data to list this pollutant to the section 303(d) list. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354312012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168202CyfluthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal101Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cyfluthrin from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309472012Cyfluthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two water samples and one sediment sample exceed the water quality objective. Those two water sample exceedances were occurred on a single day, May 1, 2006, and the data is not temporally independent to be used in the assessment based on the section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy. So the LOE No. 46374 received a use rating of insufficient information.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used is not satified the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of two water samples exceed the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, these two exceedances occurred on a single day, and the data is not temporally independent. According to Section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy, "If the majority of samples were collected on a single day, the data shall not be used as the primary data set supporting the listing decision." Thus, these two water sample exceedances were not used as supporting data to list this pollutant to the section 303(d) list. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   340232012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25885CyfluthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one non-detect sample collected for cyfluthrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg et al. 2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data were collected at the following station: 723NROTWM (New River Outlet).The sample was collected on 10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309472012Cyfluthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two water samples and one sediment sample exceed the water quality objective. Those two water sample exceedances were occurred on a single day, May 1, 2006, and the data is not temporally independent to be used in the assessment based on the section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy. So the LOE No. 46374 received a use rating of insufficient information.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used is not satified the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of two water samples exceed the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, these two exceedances occurred on a single day, and the data is not temporally independent. According to Section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy, "If the majority of samples were collected on a single day, the data shall not be used as the primary data set supporting the listing decision." Thus, these two water sample exceedances were not used as supporting data to list this pollutant to the section 303(d) list. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463742012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000013CyfluthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal22Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total. Ten sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.00005 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of cyfluthrin does not exceed 0.00005 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.0003 ug/L. Mixtures of cyfluthrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008. Two exceedances were found in water samples collected on 5/1/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309482012Cyhalothrin, Lambda Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 11 sediment samples exceed median lethal concentration (LC50), and one of one water samples exceed the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354462012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168208Cyhalothrin, LambdaWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.44 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.44 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for lambda-cyhalothrin from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309482012Cyhalothrin, Lambda Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 11 sediment samples exceed median lethal concentration (LC50), and one of one water samples exceed the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   340242012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25890Cyhalothrin, LambdaWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one non-detect sample collected for lambda-cyhalothrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.44 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg et al. 2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data were collected at the following station: 723NROTWM (New River Outlet).The sample was collected on 10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309482012Cyhalothrin, Lambda Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 11 sediment samples exceed median lethal concentration (LC50), and one of one water samples exceed the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463422012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000021Cyhalothrin, LambdaWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal11Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, total. Eleven sample results (including 1 detected but not quantified result) were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0005 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of lambda-cyhalothrin does not exceed 0.0005 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.001 ug/L. Mixtures of lambda-cyhalothrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309502012Deltamethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 11 sediment samples exceed median lethal concentration (LC50) and none of 12 water samples exceed the maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC). This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354892012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168220DeltamethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.79 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.79 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for deltamethrin from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309502012Deltamethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 11 sediment samples exceed median lethal concentration (LC50) and none of 12 water samples exceed the maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC). This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463362012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000037DeltamethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC) of 0.02 ug/L, which is the geometric mean of the LOEC and NOEC, as determined in a 280 day toxicity study with the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database)1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309502012Deltamethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 11 sediment samples exceed median lethal concentration (LC50) and none of 12 water samples exceed the maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC). This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   340252012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25894DeltamethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one non-detect sample collected for deltamethrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.79 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg et al. 2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data were collected at the following station: 723NROTWM (New River Outlet).The sample was collected on 10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial216202012Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 5044 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50442010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Twelve water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Twelve water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples wre not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial295762012Dibenzothiophene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Dibenzothiophene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298622010State Reviewed DibenzothiopheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved8 Eight water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 10/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected biannually from 10/2002 through 5/2004 at the International boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial295762012Dibenzothiophene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Dibenzothiophene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300382010State Reviewed DibenzothiopheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004, in May and October from both sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial216342012Dichlorobromomethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Both of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 21 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   360222012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168341DichlorobromomethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Bromodichloromethane.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Bromodichloromethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 46 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial216342012Dichlorobromomethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Both of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 21 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50382010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Ethylbenzene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved190Nineteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 4 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Nineteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the international Boundary and the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Another sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 7/2003. The rest of the locations were sampled twice in May and october of 2002 The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial213772012Dichloromethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 5045 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50452010State Reviewed Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | Vinyl chlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved50Five water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed in 5/2002 and 7/2003 at 4 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 4000 ug/l Methyl Bromide, 1600 ug/l Dichloromethane, and 525 ug/l Vinyl Chloride (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002 and analyzed at all locations. In 7/2003 samples were collected and analyzed from the International Boundary only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214562012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46169 is combined with LOE No. 5603 for a use rating determination. Two fish tissue samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of the 47 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science fish tissue criteria, and none of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460892012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671464EndosulfanCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. One composite (3 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Channel Catfish. Total endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in fish tissue is 13,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 11/5/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214562012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46169 is combined with LOE No. 5603 for a use rating determination. Two fish tissue samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of the 47 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science fish tissue criteria, and none of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   330912012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 24190EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120None of the 12 samples exceeded the criteria.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe endosulfan criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L. This value corresponds to the sum of alpha-endosulfan and beta-endosulfan (USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006).1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology  Samples were collected at stations 723NRBDRY (New River at Boundary) and 723NROTWM (New River Outlet).Samples were collected on 10/25/2005, 5/1/2006, 5/7/2007, 10/23/2007, 4/21/2008, and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214562012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46169 is combined with LOE No. 5603 for a use rating determination. Two fish tissue samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of the 47 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science fish tissue criteria, and none of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461692012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671465EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. One composite (3 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Channel Catfish. Total endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Endosulfan concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 11/5/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214562012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46169 is combined with LOE No. 5603 for a use rating determination. Two fish tissue samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of the 47 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science fish tissue criteria, and none of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56032010State Reviewed EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal462Forty-one fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 2 locations in the river, generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Of these total samples, 2 fish fillet samples collected at one location exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. At the Westmorland location exceedances were found in; 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 3/13/1979, and 1 channel catfish single fish fillet sample collected on 11/18/1988 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following New River locations: near the International Boundary, and near Westmorland, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Forty-one fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp, flathead catfish, tilapia, spiny soft shelled turtle, and yellow bullhead were collected. Fifteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1979, (4)1980, 1981, (2)1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1991, 1995 and 1997-98. Five channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1988, 1990, 1992-93. Ten carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-86, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994. Five carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1989, 1994, 1997, and 1999. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1996. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1991-92. One spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. Five whole fish samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia and sailfin molly & mosquitofish were collected. Three red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1980. One tilapia single whole fish sample was collected in the year 1984. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Exceedances were found in samples collected from 3/13/1979 through 11/18/1988. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214562012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 46169 is combined with LOE No. 5603 for a use rating determination. Two fish tissue samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of the 47 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science fish tissue criteria, and none of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54892010State Reviewed EndosulfanCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal460Forty-one fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 2 locations in the river. The fish fillet samples and whole fish samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 20,000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following New River locations: near the International Boundary, and near Westmorland, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Forty-one fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp, flathead catfish, tilapia, spiny soft shelled turtle, and yellow bullhead were collected. Fifteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1979, (4)1980, 1981, (2)1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1991, 1995 and 1997-98. Five channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1988, 1990, 1992-93. Ten carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-86, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994. Five carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1989, 1994, 1997, and 1999. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1996. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1991-92. One spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. Five whole fish samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia and sailfin molly & mosquitofish were collected. Three red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1980. One tilapia single whole fish sample was collected in the year 1984. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214302012Endosulfan sulfate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determinatin. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50422010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214302012Endosulfan sulfate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determinatin. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350492012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167816Endosulfan sulfateCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan sulfate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan Sulfate criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214302012Endosulfan sulfate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determinatin. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   360522012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168354Endosulfan sulfateCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan sulfate.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan Sulfate criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial295872012Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, and Endosulfan Sulfate consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300412010State Reviewed Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004, in May and October from both sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181932012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seventeen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5268 is replaced by the LOE No. 46792 because wrong beneficial use was assigned in last assessment cycle. The beneficial use assigned to LOE No. 5268 was "Warm Freshwate Habitat", but the water quailty objective used to assess data are for the "Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms ". In addition, the "WARM" is also assessed in the LOE No. 5262 for the same data. Thus, the LOE No. 5268 is not used in the final use rating. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5042, 35690, 46792, and 35058; LOE Nos. 46171 and 5611; LOE Nos. 35691, 35074, and 2944; LOE Nos. 5262 and 5029; LOE Nos. 35075, 35516, AND 5107. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 24 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 20 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment or National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52622010State Reviewed EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Fifty-eight water samples were taken at 2 locations on the river. Fifty-two water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 6 acceptable water quality samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Of these total samples, none exceed the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) 0.086 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following New River location: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca.Fifty-eight samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Four samples were collected in 1969, 53 samples were collected from 1970-1979, 0 samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 1 sample was collected from 1990-1992. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181932012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seventeen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5268 is replaced by the LOE No. 46792 because wrong beneficial use was assigned in last assessment cycle. The beneficial use assigned to LOE No. 5268 was "Warm Freshwate Habitat", but the water quailty objective used to assess data are for the "Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms ". In addition, the "WARM" is also assessed in the LOE No. 5262 for the same data. Thus, the LOE No. 5268 is not used in the final use rating. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5042, 35690, 46792, and 35058; LOE Nos. 46171 and 5611; LOE Nos. 35691, 35074, and 2944; LOE Nos. 5262 and 5029; LOE Nos. 35075, 35516, AND 5107. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 24 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 20 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment or National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51072010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181932012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seventeen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5268 is replaced by the LOE No. 46792 because wrong beneficial use was assigned in last assessment cycle. The beneficial use assigned to LOE No. 5268 was "Warm Freshwate Habitat", but the water quailty objective used to assess data are for the "Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms ". In addition, the "WARM" is also assessed in the LOE No. 5262 for the same data. Thus, the LOE No. 5268 is not used in the final use rating. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5042, 35690, 46792, and 35058; LOE Nos. 46171 and 5611; LOE Nos. 35691, 35074, and 2944; LOE Nos. 5262 and 5029; LOE Nos. 35075, 35516, AND 5107. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 24 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 20 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment or National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50422010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181932012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seventeen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5268 is replaced by the LOE No. 46792 because wrong beneficial use was assigned in last assessment cycle. The beneficial use assigned to LOE No. 5268 was "Warm Freshwate Habitat", but the water quailty objective used to assess data are for the "Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms ". In addition, the "WARM" is also assessed in the LOE No. 5262 for the same data. Thus, the LOE No. 5268 is not used in the final use rating. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5042, 35690, 46792, and 35058; LOE Nos. 46171 and 5611; LOE Nos. 35691, 35074, and 2944; LOE Nos. 5262 and 5029; LOE Nos. 35075, 35516, AND 5107. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 24 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 20 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment or National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50292010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181932012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seventeen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5268 is replaced by the LOE No. 46792 because wrong beneficial use was assigned in last assessment cycle. The beneficial use assigned to LOE No. 5268 was "Warm Freshwate Habitat", but the water quailty objective used to assess data are for the "Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms ". In addition, the "WARM" is also assessed in the LOE No. 5262 for the same data. Thus, the LOE No. 5268 is not used in the final use rating. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5042, 35690, 46792, and 35058; LOE Nos. 46171 and 5611; LOE Nos. 35691, 35074, and 2944; LOE Nos. 5262 and 5029; LOE Nos. 35075, 35516, AND 5107. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 24 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 20 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment or National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   29442006State Reviewed EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone40Data were collected by the RWQCB at four locations on the New River in 2003. All samples were non-detects with a detection limit of 0.013 ppb. Therefore, there were no exceedances (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCTR: freshwater acute maximum = 0.086 ppb and freshwater chronic maximum = 0.036 ppb as a 4-day average.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Data were collected at four locations on the New River, from the international boundary to the outlet to the Salton Sea.Samples were collected on 4/17/2003. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181932012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seventeen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5268 is replaced by the LOE No. 46792 because wrong beneficial use was assigned in last assessment cycle. The beneficial use assigned to LOE No. 5268 was "Warm Freshwate Habitat", but the water quailty objective used to assess data are for the "Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms ". In addition, the "WARM" is also assessed in the LOE No. 5262 for the same data. Thus, the LOE No. 5268 is not used in the final use rating. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5042, 35690, 46792, and 35058; LOE Nos. 46171 and 5611; LOE Nos. 35691, 35074, and 2944; LOE Nos. 5262 and 5029; LOE Nos. 35075, 35516, AND 5107. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 24 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 20 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment or National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   467922012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Fifty-eight water samples were taken at 1 location on the river. Fifty-two water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 6 acceptable water quality samples were collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion of 0.81 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following New River location: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca.Fifty-eight samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Four samples were collected in 1969, 53 samples were collected from 1970-1979, no samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 1 sample was collected from 1990-1992. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181932012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seventeen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5268 is replaced by the LOE No. 46792 because wrong beneficial use was assigned in last assessment cycle. The beneficial use assigned to LOE No. 5268 was "Warm Freshwate Habitat", but the water quailty objective used to assess data are for the "Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms ". In addition, the "WARM" is also assessed in the LOE No. 5262 for the same data. Thus, the LOE No. 5268 is not used in the final use rating. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5042, 35690, 46792, and 35058; LOE Nos. 46171 and 5611; LOE Nos. 35691, 35074, and 2944; LOE Nos. 5262 and 5029; LOE Nos. 35075, 35516, AND 5107. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 24 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 20 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment or National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461712012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671467EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (3 fish per composite) were generated from one species: channel catfish.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 11/5/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181932012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seventeen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5268 is replaced by the LOE No. 46792 because wrong beneficial use was assigned in last assessment cycle. The beneficial use assigned to LOE No. 5268 was "Warm Freshwate Habitat", but the water quailty objective used to assess data are for the "Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms ". In addition, the "WARM" is also assessed in the LOE No. 5262 for the same data. Thus, the LOE No. 5268 is not used in the final use rating. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5042, 35690, 46792, and 35058; LOE Nos. 46171 and 5611; LOE Nos. 35691, 35074, and 2944; LOE Nos. 5262 and 5029; LOE Nos. 35075, 35516, AND 5107. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 24 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 20 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment or National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461702012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671466EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (3 fish per composite) were generated from one species: channel catfish.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 11/5/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181932012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seventeen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5268 is replaced by the LOE No. 46792 because wrong beneficial use was assigned in last assessment cycle. The beneficial use assigned to LOE No. 5268 was "Warm Freshwate Habitat", but the water quailty objective used to assess data are for the "Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms ". In addition, the "WARM" is also assessed in the LOE No. 5262 for the same data. Thus, the LOE No. 5268 is not used in the final use rating. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5042, 35690, 46792, and 35058; LOE Nos. 46171 and 5611; LOE Nos. 35691, 35074, and 2944; LOE Nos. 5262 and 5029; LOE Nos. 35075, 35516, AND 5107. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 24 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 20 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment or National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356912012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168356EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.036 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181932012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seventeen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5268 is replaced by the LOE No. 46792 because wrong beneficial use was assigned in last assessment cycle. The beneficial use assigned to LOE No. 5268 was "Warm Freshwate Habitat", but the water quailty objective used to assess data are for the "Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms ". In addition, the "WARM" is also assessed in the LOE No. 5262 for the same data. Thus, the LOE No. 5268 is not used in the final use rating. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5042, 35690, 46792, and 35058; LOE Nos. 46171 and 5611; LOE Nos. 35691, 35074, and 2944; LOE Nos. 5262 and 5029; LOE Nos. 35075, 35516, AND 5107. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 24 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 20 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment or National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356902012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168355EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181932012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seventeen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5268 is replaced by the LOE No. 46792 because wrong beneficial use was assigned in last assessment cycle. The beneficial use assigned to LOE No. 5268 was "Warm Freshwate Habitat", but the water quailty objective used to assess data are for the "Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms ". In addition, the "WARM" is also assessed in the LOE No. 5262 for the same data. Thus, the LOE No. 5268 is not used in the final use rating. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5042, 35690, 46792, and 35058; LOE Nos. 46171 and 5611; LOE Nos. 35691, 35074, and 2944; LOE Nos. 5262 and 5029; LOE Nos. 35075, 35516, AND 5107. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 24 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 20 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment or National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52682010State Reviewed EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Fifty-eight water samples were taken at 1 location on the river. Fifty-two water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 6 acceptable water quality samples were collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion of 0.81 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following New River location: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca.Fifty-eight samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 8/1969 through 4/1992. Four samples were collected in 1969, 53 samples were collected from 1970-1979, no samples were collected from 1980-1989, and 1 sample was collected from 1990-1992. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181932012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seventeen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5268 is replaced by the LOE No. 46792 because wrong beneficial use was assigned in last assessment cycle. The beneficial use assigned to LOE No. 5268 was "Warm Freshwate Habitat", but the water quailty objective used to assess data are for the "Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms ". In addition, the "WARM" is also assessed in the LOE No. 5262 for the same data. Thus, the LOE No. 5268 is not used in the final use rating. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5042, 35690, 46792, and 35058; LOE Nos. 46171 and 5611; LOE Nos. 35691, 35074, and 2944; LOE Nos. 5262 and 5029; LOE Nos. 35075, 35516, AND 5107. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 24 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 20 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment or National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54902010State Reviewed EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal430Forty-one fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 2 locations in the river. Three fish fillet samples could not be used in this assessment because the constituent was not analyzed in the sample. The 38 fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 1000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following New River locations: near the International Boundary, and near Westmorland, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Forty-one fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp, flathead catfish, tilapia, spiny soft shelled turtle, and yellow bullhead were collected. Fifteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1979, (4)1980, 1981, (2)1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1991, 1995 and 1997-98. Five channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1988, 1990, 1992-93. Ten carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-86, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994. Five carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1989, 1994, 1997, and 1999. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1996. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1991-92. One spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. Five whole fish samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia and sailfin molly & mosquitofish were collected. Three red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1980. One tilapia single whole fish sample was collected in the year 1984. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181932012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seventeen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5268 is replaced by the LOE No. 46792 because wrong beneficial use was assigned in last assessment cycle. The beneficial use assigned to LOE No. 5268 was "Warm Freshwate Habitat", but the water quailty objective used to assess data are for the "Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms ". In addition, the "WARM" is also assessed in the LOE No. 5262 for the same data. Thus, the LOE No. 5268 is not used in the final use rating. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5042, 35690, 46792, and 35058; LOE Nos. 46171 and 5611; LOE Nos. 35691, 35074, and 2944; LOE Nos. 5262 and 5029; LOE Nos. 35075, 35516, AND 5107. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 24 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 20 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment or National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56112010State Reviewed EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal430Forty-one fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 2 locations in the river. Three fish fillet samples could not be used in this assessment because the constituent was not analyzed in the sample. The 38 fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following New River locations: near the International Boundary, and near Westmorland, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Forty-one fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp, flathead catfish, tilapia, spiny soft shelled turtle, and yellow bullhead were collected. Fifteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1979, (4)1980, 1981, (2)1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1991, 1995 and 1997-98. Five channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1988, 1990, 1992-93. Ten carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-86, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994. Five carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1989, 1994, 1997, and 1999. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1996. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1991-92. One spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. Five whole fish samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia and sailfin molly & mosquitofish were collected. Three red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1980. One tilapia single whole fish sample was collected in the year 1984. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181932012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seventeen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5268 is replaced by the LOE No. 46792 because wrong beneficial use was assigned in last assessment cycle. The beneficial use assigned to LOE No. 5268 was "Warm Freshwate Habitat", but the water quailty objective used to assess data are for the "Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms ". In addition, the "WARM" is also assessed in the LOE No. 5262 for the same data. Thus, the LOE No. 5268 is not used in the final use rating. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5042, 35690, 46792, and 35058; LOE Nos. 46171 and 5611; LOE Nos. 35691, 35074, and 2944; LOE Nos. 5262 and 5029; LOE Nos. 35075, 35516, AND 5107. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 24 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 20 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment or National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350582012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167825EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181932012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seventeen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5268 is replaced by the LOE No. 46792 because wrong beneficial use was assigned in last assessment cycle. The beneficial use assigned to LOE No. 5268 was "Warm Freshwate Habitat", but the water quailty objective used to assess data are for the "Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms ". In addition, the "WARM" is also assessed in the LOE No. 5262 for the same data. Thus, the LOE No. 5268 is not used in the final use rating. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5042, 35690, 46792, and 35058; LOE Nos. 46171 and 5611; LOE Nos. 35691, 35074, and 2944; LOE Nos. 5262 and 5029; LOE Nos. 35075, 35516, AND 5107. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 24 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 20 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment or National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350742012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167843EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.036 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181932012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seventeen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5268 is replaced by the LOE No. 46792 because wrong beneficial use was assigned in last assessment cycle. The beneficial use assigned to LOE No. 5268 was "Warm Freshwate Habitat", but the water quailty objective used to assess data are for the "Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms ". In addition, the "WARM" is also assessed in the LOE No. 5262 for the same data. Thus, the LOE No. 5268 is not used in the final use rating. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5042, 35690, 46792, and 35058; LOE Nos. 46171 and 5611; LOE Nos. 35691, 35074, and 2944; LOE Nos. 5262 and 5029; LOE Nos. 35075, 35516, AND 5107. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 24 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 20 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment or National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350752012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167844EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for sum of endrin is 207 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181932012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seventeen lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5268 is replaced by the LOE No. 46792 because wrong beneficial use was assigned in last assessment cycle. The beneficial use assigned to LOE No. 5268 was "Warm Freshwate Habitat", but the water quailty objective used to assess data are for the "Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms ". In addition, the "WARM" is also assessed in the LOE No. 5262 for the same data. Thus, the LOE No. 5268 is not used in the final use rating. Several sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5042, 35690, 46792, and 35058; LOE Nos. 46171 and 5611; LOE Nos. 35691, 35074, and 2944; LOE Nos. 5262 and 5029; LOE Nos. 35075, 35516, AND 5107. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 24 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting aquatic life uses. None of 20 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment or National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355162012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168297EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for endrin is 207 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial212972012Endrin aldehyde Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350812012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167850Endrin aldehydeCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin Aldehyde.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endrin Aldehyde criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial212972012Endrin aldehyde Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356922012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168357Endrin aldehydeCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin Aldehyde.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endrin Aldehyde criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial212972012Endrin aldehyde Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50422010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial321922012Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 11 sediment samples exceed the median lethal concentration (LC50) and none of 12 water samples exceed the USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database, median lethal concentration (LC50). This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354362012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168232Esfenvalerate/FenvalerateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.5 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.5 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial321922012Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 11 sediment samples exceed the median lethal concentration (LC50) and none of 12 water samples exceed the USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database, median lethal concentration (LC50). This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   359392012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168321Esfenvalerate/FenvalerateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.5 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.5 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial321922012Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 11 sediment samples exceed the median lethal concentration (LC50) and none of 12 water samples exceed the USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database, median lethal concentration (LC50). This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463582012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000045Esfenvalerate/FenvalerateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.13 ug/L, as determined in a 96 hour toxicity test using the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database)1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214942012Ethion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   54912010State Reviewed EthionCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal430Forty-one fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 2 locations in the river. Three fish fillet samples could not be used in this assessment because the constituent was not analyzed in the sample. The 38 fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 2000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following New River locations: near the International Boundary, and near Westmorland, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Forty-one fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp, flathead catfish, tilapia, spiny soft shelled turtle, and yellow bullhead were collected. Fifteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1979, (4)1980, 1981, (2)1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1991, 1995 and 1997-98. Five channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1988, 1990, 1992-93. Ten carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-86, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994. Five carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1989, 1994, 1997, and 1999. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1996. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1991-92. One spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. Five whole fish samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia and sailfin molly & mosquitofish were collected. Three red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1980. One tilapia single whole fish sample was collected in the year 1984. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial216902012Ethylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determiantion. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.Af  351002012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167857EthylbenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal110Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceed the criterion for Ethylbenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Ethylbenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 29,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial216902012Ethylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determiantion. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.Af  50382010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Ethylbenzene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved190Nineteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 4 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Nineteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the international Boundary and the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Another sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 7/2003. The rest of the locations were sampled twice in May and october of 2002 The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial216902012Ethylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determiantion. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.Af  356932012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168358EthylbenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Ethylbenzene.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Ethylbenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 29,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309512012Fenpropathrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six sediment samples exceed median lethal concentration (LC50), and none of six water samples exceed the median lethal concentration (LC50). These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354642012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168240FenpropathrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for fenpropathrin from Ding et al. ( 2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY, New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected over the time period 10/22/2007-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309512012Fenpropathrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six sediment samples exceed median lethal concentration (LC50), and none of six water samples exceed the median lethal concentration (LC50). These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464492012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000053FenpropathrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin, 2.2 ug/L, is the median lethal concentration (LC50) as determined in a 96 hour toxicity test using the bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database)1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY, New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected over the time period 10/22/2007-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309512012Fenpropathrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six sediment samples exceed median lethal concentration (LC50), and none of six water samples exceed the median lethal concentration (LC50). These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   359582012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168324FenpropathrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for fenpropathrin from Ding et al. ( 2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309512012Fenpropathrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six sediment samples exceed median lethal concentration (LC50), and none of six water samples exceed the median lethal concentration (LC50). These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   340262012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25899FenpropathrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one non-detect sample collected for fenpropathrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Ding et al. 2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data were collected at the following station: 723NROTWM (New River Outlet).The sample was collected on 10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial216512012Fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 19 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50422010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial216512012Fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 19 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355132012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168257FluorantheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Fluoranthene (sum of Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene/Pyrenes, C1-).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for fluoranthene is 2230 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial216512012Fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 19 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51072010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial216512012Fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 19 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   53272010State Reviewed FluorantheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentNot Recorded10One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the river, collected on 7/11/1986. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 2,230 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following New River location: USGS Station No. 10254970 near the International Boundary in Calexico, Ca.One sample was collected on 7/11/1986. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214312012Fluorene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50422010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214312012Fluorene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329852012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21862FluoreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Zero of 8 samples collected for fluorene (Sum of c0-c3) exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for fluorene in freshwater sediments is 536 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY, New River Outlet - 723NROTWM.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214312012Fluorene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   53282010State Reviewed FluoreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentNot Recorded10One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the river, collected on 7/11/1986. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 536 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following New River location: USGS Station No. 10254970 near the International Boundary in Calexico, Ca.One sample was collected on 7/11/1986. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214312012Fluorene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51072010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181792012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5029 and 2975; LOE Nos. 46186 and 5621. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56212010State Reviewed HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal420Forty-one fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 2 locations in the river. Four fish fillet samples could not be used in this assessment because the constituent was not analyzed in the sample. The 37 fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following New River locations: near the International Boundary, and near Westmorland, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Forty-one fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp, flathead catfish, tilapia, spiny soft shelled turtle, and yellow bullhead were collected. Fifteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1979, (4)1980, 1981, (2)1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1991, 1995 and 1997-98. Five channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1988, 1990, 1992-93. Ten carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-86, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994. Five carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1989, 1994, 1997, and 1999. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1996. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1991-92. One spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. Five whole fish samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia and sailfin molly & mosquitofish were collected. Three red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1980. One tilapia single whole fish sample was collected in the year 1984. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181792012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5029 and 2975; LOE Nos. 46186 and 5621. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50292010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181792012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5029 and 2975; LOE Nos. 46186 and 5621. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   29452006State ReviewedNJK: 305(b) Insufficient info - detection limit is greater than chronic maximumHeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone40Data were collected by the RWQCB at four locations on the New River in 2003. All samples were non-detects with a detection limit of 0.010 ppb. The detection limit was greater than the chronic criteria and hence the data could not be assessed in comparison to the chronic criteria. Therefore, there were no exceedances (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCTR: freshwater acute maximum = 0.52 ppb and freshwater chronic maximum = 0.0038 ppb as a 4-day average.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Data were collected at four locations on the New River, from the international boundary to the outlet to the Salton Sea.Samples were collected on 4/17/2003. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181792012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5029 and 2975; LOE Nos. 46186 and 5621. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   358732012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168363HeptachlorCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Two samples were collected but not used in the assessment because the laboratory method detection limit was above the objective, therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00021 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181792012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5029 and 2975; LOE Nos. 46186 and 5621. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   358742012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168364HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181792012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5029 and 2975; LOE Nos. 46186 and 5621. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461862012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671470HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. One composite (3 fish per composite) were generated from one species: channel catfish.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 11/5/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181792012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5029 and 2975; LOE Nos. 46186 and 5621. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351102012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167923HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181792012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5029 and 2975; LOE Nos. 46186 and 5621. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351572012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167909HeptachlorCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twelve samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00021 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181272012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5029 is combined with LOE No. 2946 for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46188 and 5629 are combined for a use rating determination as well. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science Fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461882012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671472Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (3 fish per composite) were generated from one species: channel catfish.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 11/5/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181272012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5029 is combined with LOE No. 2946 for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46188 and 5629 are combined for a use rating determination as well. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science Fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461872012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671471Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (3 fish per composite) were generated from one species: channel catfish. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in fish tissue is 0.93 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking WaterData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 11/5/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181272012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5029 is combined with LOE No. 2946 for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46188 and 5629 are combined for a use rating determination as well. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science Fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   358762012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168366Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor Epoxide criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181272012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5029 is combined with LOE No. 2946 for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46188 and 5629 are combined for a use rating determination as well. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science Fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   358752012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168365Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Two samples were collected but not used in the assessment because the laboratory method detection limit was above the objective, therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor Epoxide criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00011 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181272012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5029 is combined with LOE No. 2946 for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46188 and 5629 are combined for a use rating determination as well. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science Fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351502012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167941Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor Epoxide criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181272012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5029 is combined with LOE No. 2946 for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46188 and 5629 are combined for a use rating determination as well. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science Fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351142012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167927Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twelve samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor Epoxide criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00011 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181272012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5029 is combined with LOE No. 2946 for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46188 and 5629 are combined for a use rating determination as well. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science Fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56292010State Reviewed Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal420Forty-one fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 2 locations in the river. Four fish fillet samples could not be used in this assessment because the constituent was not analyzed in the sample. The 37 fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following New River locations: near the International Boundary, and near Westmorland, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Forty-one fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp, flathead catfish, tilapia, spiny soft shelled turtle, and yellow bullhead were collected. Fifteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1979, (4)1980, 1981, (2)1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1991, 1995 and 1997-98. Five channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1988, 1990, 1992-93. Ten carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-86, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994. Five carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1989, 1994, 1997, and 1999. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1996. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1991-92. One spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. Five whole fish samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia and sailfin molly & mosquitofish were collected. Three red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1980. One tilapia single whole fish sample was collected in the year 1984. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181272012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5029 is combined with LOE No. 2946 for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46188 and 5629 are combined for a use rating determination as well. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science Fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54922010State Reviewed Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal20Forty-one fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 2 locations in the river. Thirty-nine fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples could not be used in this assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and it could not be determined that the detection limit was not below the criteria concentration or the constituent was not analyzed in the sample. The 2 fish fillet samples that were acceptable were collected on 11/11/1998/1980 and 12/09/1999. Neither sample exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 4 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following New River locations: near the International Boundary, and near Westmorland, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Forty-one fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp, flathead catfish, tilapia, spiny soft shelled turtle, and yellow bullhead were collected. Fifteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1979, (4)1980, 1981, (2)1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1991, 1995 and 1997-98. Five channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1988, 1990, 1992-93. Ten carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-86, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994. Five carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1989, 1994, 1997, and 1999. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1996. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1991-92. One spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. Five whole fish samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia and sailfin molly & mosquitofish were collected. Three red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1980. One tilapia single whole fish sample was collected in the year 1984. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Field procedures described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. Used CDFG's Laboratory Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181272012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5029 is combined with LOE No. 2946 for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46188 and 5629 are combined for a use rating determination as well. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science Fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   29462006State ReviewedNJK: Insufficient information for 305(b) due to detection limit being greater than chronic maximum criterionHeptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone40Data were collected by the RWQCB at four locations on the New River in 2003. All samples were non-detects with a detection limit of 0.010 ppb. The detection limit was greater than the chronic criteria and hence the data could not be assessed in comparison to the chronic criteria. Therefore, there were no exceedances (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCTR: freshwater acute maximum = 0.52 ppb and freshwater chronic maximum = 0.0038 ppb as a 4-day average.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Data were collected at four locations on the New River, from the international boundary to the outlet to the Salton Sea.Samples were collected on 4/17/2003. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181272012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5029 is combined with LOE No. 2946 for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46188 and 5629 are combined for a use rating determination as well. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science Fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50292010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial295882012Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Heptachlor, and Heptachlor Epoxide consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300422010State Reviewed Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004, in May and October from both sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial295812012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Methoxychlor | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, and Methoxychlor consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300462010State Reviewed Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Methoxychlor | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004, in May and October from both sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial216912012Hexachlorobutadiene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.  358782012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168368HexachlorobutadieneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobutadiene.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Hexachlorobutadiene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 50 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial216912012Hexachlorobutadiene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.  355432012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167954HexachlorobutadieneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal110Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobutadiene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Hexachlorobutadiene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 50 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial216912012Hexachlorobutadiene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 19 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.  50382010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Ethylbenzene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved190Nineteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 4 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Nineteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the international Boundary and the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Another sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 7/2003. The rest of the locations were sampled twice in May and october of 2002 The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214952012Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (mixture) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of 43 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   67442010State Reviewed Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (mixture)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal433Forty-one fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 2 locations in the river. Three fish fillet samples could not be used in this assessment because the constituent was not analyzed in the samples. The 38 fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Of these total samples, 3 fish fillet samples collected at one location exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. At the Westmorland location exceedances were found in 3 channel catfish fillet composite samples collected on 5/09/1980, and (2)4/22/1982 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following New River locations: near the International Boundary, and near Westmorland, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Forty-one fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp, flathead catfish, tilapia, spiny soft shelled turtle, and yellow bullhead were collected. Fifteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1979, (4)1980, 1981, (2)1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1991, 1995 and 1997-98. Five channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1988, 1990, 1992-93. Ten carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-86, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994. Five carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1989, 1994, 1997, and 1999. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1996. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1991-92. One spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. Five whole fish samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia and sailfin molly & mosquitofish were collected. Three red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1980. One tilapia single whole fish sample was collected in the year 1984. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. Exceedances were found in samples collected from 5/09/1980 through 4/22/1982. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial216322012Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 5044 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50442010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Twelve water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Twelve water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples wre not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183402012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 2924 and 5027 are combined for a use rating determination. Two of the water samples exceeded the water qualty objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 128 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration, and one of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration. None of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51072010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183402012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 2924 and 5027 are combined for a use rating determination. Two of the water samples exceeded the water qualty objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 128 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration, and one of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration. None of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50272010State Reviewed Lead | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved150Fifteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Lead, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fifteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Another sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 7/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183402012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 2924 and 5027 are combined for a use rating determination. Two of the water samples exceeded the water qualty objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 128 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration, and one of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration. None of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   29242006State Reviewed LeadWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal1131Samples were collected by the RWQCB from June 1995 through December 2003 on the New River at the International Boundary. Of the 98 monthly samples, 1 was in exceedance of the chronic criteria and none were in exceedance of the acute criteria. Samples were also collected on the New River by the RWQCB at 3 locations from 6/11/1996 to 12/4/1996. None of these 6 samples were in exceedance. Samples were also collected by the RWQCB from 10/31/1999 to 11/6/1999 on the New River. None of these 9 samples were in exceedance (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCTR: freshwater chronic maximum as a 4-day average based on hardness. CTR: freshwater acute maximum based on hardness.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected on the New River at the International Boundary. The 6 samples were collected on the New River at the International Boundary, and also at the International Drain and Puente Madero.The 98 samples were collected monthly from June 1995 through December 2003. The 6 samples were collected on 6 days from 6/11/1996 to 12/4/1996 and the 9 samples were collected monthly from 10/31/1999 to 11/6/1999.For the 98 samples, temperature, pH, D.O., and conductivity were also measured.Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183402012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 2924 and 5027 are combined for a use rating determination. Two of the water samples exceeded the water qualty objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 128 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration, and one of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration. None of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   358682012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168303LeadWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Lead.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for lead is 128 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183402012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 2924 and 5027 are combined for a use rating determination. Two of the water samples exceeded the water qualty objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 128 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration, and one of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration. None of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355702012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167966LeadWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Lead.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for lead is 128 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183402012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 2924 and 5027 are combined for a use rating determination. Two of the water samples exceeded the water qualty objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 128 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration, and one of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration. None of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329202012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21924LeadWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved121One of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for lead.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 723NRBDRY (New River at Boundary), and 723NROTWM (New River Outlet).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183402012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 2924 and 5027 are combined for a use rating determination. Two of the water samples exceeded the water qualty objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 128 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration, and one of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion continuous concentration. None of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   53232010State Reviewed LeadWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal30Three sediment quality samples were taken at 3 locations along the river. The samples were generally collected from 11/1973 through 4/2003. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 128 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following New River locations: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca., USGS Station No. 330559115385601 at Lack Road near Calipatria, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254970 near the International Boundary in Calexico, Ca.Three samples were collected. One sample was collected on 11/07/1973, another sample was collected on 10/24/01, and another sample was collected 4/14/03. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214072012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46185 and 6738 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment qualty guidelines, and none of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356962012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168361Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe HCH, Gamma (Lindane) criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of organisms is 0.063 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214072012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46185 and 6738 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment qualty guidelines, and none of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   358722012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168362Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe gamma-BHC (Lindane) criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.95 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214072012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46185 and 6738 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment qualty guidelines, and none of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461722012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671468Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (3 fish per composite) were generated from one species: channel catfish.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in fish tissue is 4.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 11/5/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214072012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46185 and 6738 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment qualty guidelines, and none of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355192012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168300Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Lindane (gamma-HCH) is 4.99 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214072012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46185 and 6738 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment qualty guidelines, and none of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351392012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167903Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Lindane (gamma-HCH) is 4.99 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214072012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46185 and 6738 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment qualty guidelines, and none of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351262012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167902Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe gamma-BHC (Lindane) criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.95 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214072012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46185 and 6738 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment qualty guidelines, and none of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350852012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167884Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe HCH, Gamma (Lindane) criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of organisms is 0.063 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214072012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46185 and 6738 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment qualty guidelines, and none of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   67382010State Reviewed Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal430Forty-one fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 2 locations in the river. Three fish fillet samples could not be used in this assessment because the constituent was not analyzed in the sample. The 38 fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following New River locations: near the International Boundary, and near Westmorland, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Forty-one fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp, flathead catfish, tilapia, spiny soft shelled turtle, and yellow bullhead were collected. Fifteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1979, (4)1980, 1981, (2)1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1991, 1995 and 1997-98. Five channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1988, 1990, 1992-93. Ten carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-86, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994. Five carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1989, 1994, 1997, and 1999. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1996. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1991-92. One spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. Five whole fish samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia and sailfin molly & mosquitofish were collected. Three red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1980. One tilapia single whole fish sample was collected in the year 1984. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214072012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46185 and 6738 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment qualty guidelines, and none of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461852012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671469Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (3 fish per composite) were generated from one species: channel catfish.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 11/5/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214072012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46185 and 6738 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment qualty guidelines, and none of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51072010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214072012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46185 and 6738 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment qualty guidelines, and none of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 44 fish tissue samples exceeded National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54932010State Reviewed Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal430Forty-one fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples were taken at 2 locations in the river. Three fish fillet samples could not be used in this assessment because the constituent was not analyzed in the sample. The 38 fish fillet samples and 5 whole fish samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 30 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following New River locations: near the International Boundary, and near Westmorland, CA.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1978 through 12/1999. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Forty-one fish fillet samples of channel catfish, carp, flathead catfish, tilapia, spiny soft shelled turtle, and yellow bullhead were collected. Fifteen channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1979, (4)1980, 1981, (2)1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1991, 1995 and 1997-98. Five channel catfish single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1988, 1990, 1992-93. Ten carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1981-86, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994. Five carp single fish fillet samples were collected in the years 1978, 1989, 1994, 1997, and 1999. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. One tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1996. Two spiny soft shelled turtle fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1991-92. One spiny soft shelled turtle single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1987. One yellow bullhead single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 1989. Five whole fish samples of red swamp crayfish, tilapia and sailfin molly & mosquitofish were collected. Three red swamp crayfish whole fish composite samples were collected in the years 1978-1980. One tilapia single whole fish sample was collected in the year 1984. One sailfin molly & mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected in the year 1985. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309522012Malathion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two water samples exceed the water quality objective. Those two water sample exceedances were occurred on a single day, October 28, 2008, and the data is not temporally independent to be used in the assessment based on the section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy. So the LOE No. 35609 received a use rating of insufficient information.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used is not satified the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of two water samples exceed the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, these two exceedances occurred on a single day, and the data is not temporally independent. According to Section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy, "If the majority of samples were collected on a single day, the data shall not be used as the primary data set supporting the listing decision." Thus, these two water sample exceedances were not used as supporting data to list this pollutant to the section 303(d) list. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356092012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167974MalathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal22Twelve samples total were collected. Two samples were detected at levels above the evaluation guideline resulting in 2 exceedances. Ten samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The UC Davis Criteria for Malathion for the protection of aquatic organisms is a 4 day average of 0.028 ug/L.1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: l. Organophosphate insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:1-48.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008. Two exceedances were found in water samples collected on 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial321872012Methidathion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355262012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168002MethidathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Methidathion.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion is 0.86 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial321882012Methoxychlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355532012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168013MethoxychlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Methoxychlor.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The criterion continuous concentration for Methoxychlor is 0.3 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial321882012Methoxychlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   358982012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168369MethoxychlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Methoxychlor.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Criterion Continuous Concentration for methoxychlor to protect of freshwater aquatic life is 0.3 ug/L (National Recommended Water Quality Criteria 2009).1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309542012Methyl Parathion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceed the California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria, and none of nine sediment samples exceed the median lethal concentration (LC50). These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354772012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168243Methyl ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for methyl parathion is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 6 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 6 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for methyl parathion from Ding et al. (2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309542012Methyl Parathion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceed the California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria, and none of nine sediment samples exceed the median lethal concentration (LC50). These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   359612012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168327Methyl ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for methyl parathion is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 6 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 6 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for methyl parathion from Ding et al. (2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309542012Methyl Parathion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceed the California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria, and none of nine sediment samples exceed the median lethal concentration (LC50). These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355972012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168072Methyl ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion is 0.08 ug/L.1.Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Methyl to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River SystemData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial213782012Methyl bromide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 5045 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 5 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50452010State Reviewed Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | Vinyl chlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved50Five water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed in 5/2002 and 7/2003 at 4 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 4000 ug/l Methyl Bromide, 1600 ug/l Dichloromethane, and 525 ug/l Vinyl Chloride (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002 and analyzed at all locations. In 7/2003 samples were collected and analyzed from the International Boundary only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309552012Mirex Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One fish tissue sample and 14 water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355922012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168022MirexWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twelve samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The criterion continuous concentration for Mirex is 0.001 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309552012Mirex Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One fish tissue sample and 14 water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   358992012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168370MirexWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Two samples were collected but not used in the assessment because the laboratory reporting limit was above the evaluation guideline, therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The criterion maximum concentration for Mirex is 0.001 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309552012Mirex Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One fish tissue sample and 14 water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462032012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671475MirexCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Mirex. One composite (3 fish per composite) were generated from one species: channel catfish. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in fish tissue is 0.28 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM]Data was collected on a single day 11/5/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial321892012Molinate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356352012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168032MolinateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Molinate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Molinate is 0.6 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial212982012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. All three water LOEs assessed for commercial uses are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 27 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50332010State Reviewed Nickel | SilverWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Nickel, and Silver (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial212982012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. All three water LOEs assessed for commercial uses are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 27 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50422010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial212982012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. All three water LOEs assessed for commercial uses are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 27 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51072010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial212982012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. All three water LOEs assessed for commercial uses are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 27 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52482010State Reviewed NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal30Three sediment quality samples were taken at 3 locations in the river, collected between 10/2001 and 4/2003. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 48.6 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following New River locations: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca., USGS Station No. 330559115385601 at Lack Road near Calipatria, Ca, USGS Station No. 10254970 near the International Boundary in Calexico, Ca.Three samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 10/2001 through 4/2003. One sample was collected in 2001, no samples were collected in 2002, and 2 samples were collected in 2003. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial212982012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. All three water LOEs assessed for commercial uses are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 27 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   358942012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168309NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for nickel is 48.6 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ New River Outlet]Data was collected on a single day 10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial212982012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. All three water LOEs assessed for commercial uses are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 27 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   331382012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 24221NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved120None of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for nickel.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 723NRBDRY (New River at Boundary) and 723NROTWM (New River Outlet).Samples collected between 10/26/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial212982012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. All three water LOEs assessed for commercial uses are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 27 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168050NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for nickel is 48.6 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial212982012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. All three water LOEs assessed for commercial uses are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 27 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356592012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168038NickelCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Nickel criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 4,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial212982012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All four sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. All three water LOEs assessed for commercial uses are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 27 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 28 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52702010State Reviewed NickelCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10Six water samples were taken at 1 location on the river. Five water sample results could not be used in the assessment because either the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration or the sample results were zero and the detection limit could not be determined. The 1 acceptable water quality sample was collected on 11/28/1978. This sample did not exceed the CTR Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion of 4,600 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected at the following New River location: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca.Six samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 11/1978 through 4/1981. One sample was collected in 1978, no samples were collected in 1979, 4 samples were collected in 1980, and 1 sample was collected in 1981. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial293632012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29855 and 30033 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Phorate, and Phosmet are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceed the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Phorate, and none of 12 water samples exceed the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   298552010State Reviewed Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | TrichloronateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial293632012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29855 and 30033 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Phorate, and Phosmet are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceed the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Phorate, and none of 12 water samples exceed the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356652012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168090PhosmetWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Phosmet.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet is 5.6 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial293632012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29855 and 30033 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Phorate, and Phosmet are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceed the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Phorate, and none of 12 water samples exceed the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356392012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168082PhorateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Phorate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Phorate is 2 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial293632012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29855 and 30033 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Phorate, and Phosmet are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceed the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Phorate, and none of 12 water samples exceed the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   300332010State Reviewed Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | TedionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, or Tedion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004, in May and October from both sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309602012PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of four sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354682012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168279PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for fluoranthene is 2230 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial321932012Parathion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twelve water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355582012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168064ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twelve samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The criterion continuous concentration for Parathion, Ethyl is 0.013 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309572012Permethrin, total Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Eight water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.4. None of 11 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464572012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000061Permethrin, totalWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total. Eight sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.002 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of permethrin does not exceed 0.002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.01 ug/L. Mixtures of permethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/23/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309572012Permethrin, total Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Eight water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.4. None of 11 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354962012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168251Permethrin, totalWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 8.9 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for permethrin from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309572012Permethrin, total Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Eight water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.4. None of 11 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   340272012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25901Permethrin, totalWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one non-detect sample collected for permethrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg et al. 2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data were collected at the following station: 723NROTWM (New River Outlet).The sample was collected on 10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214932012Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   53312010State Reviewed PhenanthreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentNot Recorded10One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the river, collected on 7/11/1986. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 1,170 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following New River location: USGS Station No. 10254970 near the International Boundary in Calexico, Ca.One sample was collected on 7/11/1986. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214932012Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328252012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21808PhenanthreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal81One of 8 samples collected for Phenanthrene (sum of c0-c4) exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Phenanthrene in freshwater sediments is 1170 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following stations: New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY, and New River Outlet - 723NROTWM.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214932012Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51072010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial295752012Propazine | Terbuthylazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Propazine, and Terbuthylazine consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. LOE No. 29859 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Propazine is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Propazine and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   298592010State Reviewed Propazine | TerbuthylazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved8 Eight water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for dissolved fractions of Propazine, or Terbuthylazine for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Samples were not collected from the two locations in November of 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial295752012Propazine | Terbuthylazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Propazine, and Terbuthylazine consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. LOE No. 29859 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Propazine is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Propazine and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355822012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168114PropazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Propazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Propazine is 25 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial225042012Pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 19 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50422010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial225042012Pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 19 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51072010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial225042012Pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 19 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   53322010State Reviewed PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentNot Recorded10One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the river, collected on 7/11/1986. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 1,520 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following New River location: USGS Station No. 10254970 near the International Boundary in Calexico, Ca.One sample was collected on 7/11/1986. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial225042012Pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 19 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354522012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168264PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Pyrene (sum of Pyrene and Fluoranthene/Pyrenes, C1-).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for pyrene is 1520 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial293602012Salinity Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Salinity consistent with Listing Policy section 3.2. No evaluation guideline for Salinity for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there is no appropriate evaluation guideline, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for Salinity for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298672010State Reviewed SalinityWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved7 Seven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 3 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for Salinity for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Seven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from the International Boundary and at the outlet to the Salton Sea sampling locations in 4/2003, 11/2003, and 5/2004. In 5/2002 a sample was collected from the Drop 2 sampling location only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214572012Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two LOEs are combined for use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329622012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21938SilverWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved120None of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for silver.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion maximum concentrations (1-hour average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 723NRBDRY (New River at Boundary) and 723NROTWM (New River Outlet).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214572012Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two LOEs are combined for use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50332010State Reviewed Nickel | SilverWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Nickel, and Silver (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial321902012Simazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356232012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168125SimazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Simazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Simazine is 90 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial293652012Streptococcus, fecal Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess fecal Streptococcus consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guideline for the total density of fecal Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of fecal Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298612010State Reviewed Streptococcus, fecalWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal11 Eleven water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 4 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Eleven water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from all four sampling locations in 5/2002 and 10/2002. In 4/2003 samples were collected from the International Boundary and the outlet to the Salton Sea locations only. In 5/2004 a sample was collected from the International Boundary only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial216962012Tetrachloroethylene/PCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   359012012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168372Tetrachloroethylene/PCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Tetrachloroethylene.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Tetrachloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 8.85 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial216962012Tetrachloroethylene/PCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356722012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168140Tetrachloroethylene/PCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal110Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceed the criterion for Tetrachloroethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Tetrachloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 8.85 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial216962012Tetrachloroethylene/PCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50382010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Ethylbenzene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved190Nineteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 4 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Nineteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the international Boundary and the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Another sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 7/2003. The rest of the locations were sampled twice in May and october of 2002 The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309612012Thiobencarb/Bolero Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353842012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168153Thiobencarb/BoleroWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal121Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Thiobencarb.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Thiobencarb is 1.4 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183852012Total Dissolved Solids Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 99 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   29292006State Reviewed Total Dissolved SolidsFreshwater Replenishment Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved970Samples were collected by the RWQCB from June 1995 to December 2003 on the New River at the International Boundary. Of the 97 monthly samples, 12-month averages were calculated and 0 were in exceedance of the criteria. Samples were also collected by the RWQCB on the New River at 3 locations from 6/11/1996 to 12/4/1996. None of these 6 samples were in exceedance. Samples were also collected by the RWQCB from 10/31/1999 to 11/6/1999 on the New River. None of these 9 samples were in exceedance. Samples were also collected by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) from 1998 to 2003 at 1 location on the New River. Twelve-month averages were calculated and none of these 54 samples were in exceedance (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedColorado River RWQCB Basin Plan: Maximum = 4500 mg/L and Annual Average = 4000 mg/L.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Most samples were collected on the New River at the International Boundary. For the 6 samples, they were collected on the New River at the International Boundary, and at both the International Drain and Puente Madero. The 54 samples were collected at the New River Sea outlet.The 97 samples were collected monthly from June 1995 to December 2003. The 6 samples were collected on 6 days from 6/11/1996 to 12/4/1996, and the 9 samples were collected monthly from 10/31/1999 to 11/6/1999. The 54 samples were collected monthly from 6/1/1998 to 1/12/2004.For the 97 samples, temperature, pH, D.O., and conductivity were also measured.Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided. Also used Imperial Irrigation District (IID) SOPs. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183852012Total Dissolved Solids Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 99 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   323672012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21695Total Dissolved SolidsWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved20Zero of the 2 samples exceeded the maximum concentration objective and none of the sites exceeded the annual average objective.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe site-pecific objective for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in the Colorado River Basin Plan on page 3-3, includes an annual average of 4000 mg/L and a maximum of 4500 mg/L.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected at site: Mexicali Sanitation Boundary 2.0-723NRMSBD. This station is the same as New River at Boundary-723NRBDRY.Samples were collected on 8/2/2006, and 7/12/2006 The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial293582012Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel is used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298602010State Reviewed Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as DieselWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved8 Eight water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel, used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics (dro),for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at the International boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial293582012Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel is used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300372010State Reviewed Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as DieselWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal8 Eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel, used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics (dro), for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003, in May and October from both sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial215302012Trichloroethylene/TCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   359032012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168374Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Trichloroethylene.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Trichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 81 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial215302012Trichloroethylene/TCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50382010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Dichlorobromomethane | Ethylbenzene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved190Nineteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 4 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 46 ug/l Dichlorobromomethane, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Nineteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the international Boundary and the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Another sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 7/2003. The rest of the locations were sampled twice in May and october of 2002 The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial215302012Trichloroethylene/TCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353992012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168168Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal110Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceed the criterion for Trichloroethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Trichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 81 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183572012Vinyl chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 5045 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 15 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50452010State Reviewed Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | Vinyl chlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved50Five water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed in 5/2002 and 7/2003 at 4 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 4000 ug/l Methyl Bromide, 1600 ug/l Dichloromethane, and 525 ug/l Vinyl Chloride (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Five water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002 and analyzed at all locations. In 7/2003 samples were collected and analyzed from the International Boundary only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial295652012alpha-Chlordene | gama-Chlordene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess alpha-Chlordene, and gamma-Chlordene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298462010State Reviewed alpha-Chlordene | gama-ChlordeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial295652012alpha-Chlordene | gama-Chlordene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess alpha-Chlordene, and gamma-Chlordene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300302010State Reviewed alpha-Chlordene | gama-ChlordeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004, in May and October from both sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181842012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5029 received a use rating of insufficient information becasue it does not have enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objective is met. The minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. LOE No. 2942 is combined with LOE Nos. 35028 and 36049 because all three LOEs assessed for the same beneficial uses with the same water quality objectives. LOE Nos. 35015, 36048 and 5042 are combined for a use rating determiantion. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded..  50422010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181842012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5029 received a use rating of insufficient information becasue it does not have enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objective is met. The minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. LOE No. 2942 is combined with LOE Nos. 35028 and 36049 because all three LOEs assessed for the same beneficial uses with the same water quality objectives. LOE Nos. 35015, 36048 and 5042 are combined for a use rating determiantion. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded..  360492012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168351alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan I criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for alpha-endosulfan is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181842012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5029 received a use rating of insufficient information becasue it does not have enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objective is met. The minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. LOE No. 2942 is combined with LOE Nos. 35028 and 36049 because all three LOEs assessed for the same beneficial uses with the same water quality objectives. LOE Nos. 35015, 36048 and 5042 are combined for a use rating determiantion. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded..  360482012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168350alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan I criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181842012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5029 received a use rating of insufficient information becasue it does not have enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objective is met. The minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. LOE No. 2942 is combined with LOE Nos. 35028 and 36049 because all three LOEs assessed for the same beneficial uses with the same water quality objectives. LOE Nos. 35015, 36048 and 5042 are combined for a use rating determiantion. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded..  29422006State Reviewed alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone40Data were collected by the RWQCB at four locations on the New River in 2003. All samples were non-detects with a detection limit of 0.011 ppb. Therefore, there were no exceedances (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCTR: freshwater acute maximum = 0.22 ppb. CTR: freshwater chronic maximum = 0.056 ppb as a 4-day average.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Data were collected at four locations on the New River, from the international boundary to the outlet to the Salton Sea.Samples were collected on 4/17/2003. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181842012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5029 received a use rating of insufficient information becasue it does not have enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objective is met. The minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. LOE No. 2942 is combined with LOE Nos. 35028 and 36049 because all three LOEs assessed for the same beneficial uses with the same water quality objectives. LOE Nos. 35015, 36048 and 5042 are combined for a use rating determiantion. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded..  50292010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181842012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5029 received a use rating of insufficient information becasue it does not have enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objective is met. The minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. LOE No. 2942 is combined with LOE Nos. 35028 and 36049 because all three LOEs assessed for the same beneficial uses with the same water quality objectives. LOE Nos. 35015, 36048 and 5042 are combined for a use rating determiantion. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded..  350152012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167780alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan I criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181842012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5029 received a use rating of insufficient information becasue it does not have enough sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objective is met. The minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. LOE No. 2942 is combined with LOE Nos. 35028 and 36049 because all three LOEs assessed for the same beneficial uses with the same water quality objectives. LOE Nos. 35015, 36048 and 5042 are combined for a use rating determiantion. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded..  350282012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167794alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan I criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for alpha-endosulfan is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214042012alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50422010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214042012alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351332012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167866Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), alphaCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, alpha.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe BHC, alpha criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.013 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial214042012alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356942012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168359Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), alphaCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, alpha.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe BHC, alpha criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.013 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial216392012beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356952012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168360Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), betaCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, beta.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe BHC, beta criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.046 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial216392012beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351542012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167875Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), betaCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, beta.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe BHC, beta criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.046 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial216392012beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50422010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181942012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 35045 and 35041 are combined with LOE NO. 2943 for a use rating determination. LOE NOs. 5042, 35032 and 36050 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350322012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167798beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan II criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181942012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 35045 and 35041 are combined with LOE NO. 2943 for a use rating determination. LOE NOs. 5042, 35032 and 36050 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350452012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167812beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan II criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for beta-endosulfan is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181942012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 35045 and 35041 are combined with LOE NO. 2943 for a use rating determination. LOE NOs. 5042, 35032 and 36050 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   360502012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168352beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan II criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181942012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 35045 and 35041 are combined with LOE NO. 2943 for a use rating determination. LOE NOs. 5042, 35032 and 36050 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50422010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181942012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 35045 and 35041 are combined with LOE NO. 2943 for a use rating determination. LOE NOs. 5042, 35032 and 36050 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   360512012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168353beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan II criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for beta-endosulfan is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181942012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 35045 and 35041 are combined with LOE NO. 2943 for a use rating determination. LOE NOs. 5042, 35032 and 36050 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   29432006State Reviewed beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone40Data were collected by the RWQCB at four locations on the New River in 2003. All samples were non-detects with a detection limit of 0.018 ppb. Therefore, there were no exceedances (CRBRWQCB, 2004C).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedCTR: freshwater acute maximum = 0.22 ppb. CTR: freshwater chronic maximum = 0.056 ppb as a 4-day average.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Data were collected at four locations on the New River, from the international boundary to the outlet to the Salton Sea.Samples were collected on 4/17/2003. Used RWQCB QA/QC in sample collection. Lab analysis was done by E.S. Babcock & Sons laboratory and a Quality Assurance Manual was provided. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial181942012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 35045 and 35041 are combined with LOE NO. 2943 for a use rating determination. LOE NOs. 5042, 35032 and 36050 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50292010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial293532012cis-Nonachlor | trans-Nonachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess cis-Nonachlor, and trans-Nonachlor consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved and sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved and sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300262010State Reviewed cis-Nonachlor | trans-NonachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004, in May and October from both sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial293532012cis-Nonachlor | trans-Nonachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess cis-Nonachlor, and trans-Nonachlor consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved and sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved and sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298392010State Reviewed cis-Nonachlor | trans-NonachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for dissolved fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial301492012delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess delta-BHC consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300252010State Reviewed delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal8 Eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004, in May and October from both sampling locations. Samples were not collected from either sampling location in October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial301492012delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess delta-BHC consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298402010State Reviewed delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for dissolved fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228352012m-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50392010State Reviewed m-DichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved190Nineteen water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 4 locations along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 2600 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Nineteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Another sample was collected from the International Boundary location in 6/2003. The rest of the locations were sampled twice in 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228352012m-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   360002012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1683361, 3 -dichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 2,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial228352012m-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 32 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347372012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675281, 3 -dichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal110Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 2,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial293612012o,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)) | o,p'-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | o,p'-DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | p,p'-DDMU Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, and p,p'-DDMU consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298532010State Reviewed o,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)) | o,p'-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | o,p'-DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | p,p'-DDMUWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations along the New River (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at the International boundary and near the outlet to the Salton Sea locations. Samples were usually collected in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial321912012o-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   359812012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168332o-DichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 New River Monitoring CY2006PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 17,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Mexicali Sanitation, Boundary 2.0]Data was collected over the time period 7/12/2006-8/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial321912012o-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 13 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347312012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167492o-DichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal110Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 17,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet, New River at Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183202012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.1, 3.6, and 3.9 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status while under section 3.9, a minimum of two lines of evidence are needed to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on section 3.6 the site does not have significant sediment toxicity and the pollutant is not likely to cause or contribute to the toxic effect. The benthic community is not impacted. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The sediment quality guideline used complies with the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 3. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 4. Four of 8502 water samples were in exceedance of the water quality objective, and these do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The benthic community in this water body is not impacted.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   29152006State Reviewed pHFreshwater Replenishment Pollutant-WaterWaterNone180Samples were collected at nine stations on one day in May and one day in June of 2001. There were 18 samples and 0 exceedances (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedColorado River RWQCB Basin Plan: Minimum = 6.0 s.u., Maximum = 9.0 s.u.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected at Evan Hughes Highway and the International Boundary stations, in addition to 7 other locations which could not be determined based on unrecognizable sample IDs.Samples were collected on 5/30/2001 and 6/20/2001. QA/QC used by RWQCB staff. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183202012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.1, 3.6, and 3.9 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status while under section 3.9, a minimum of two lines of evidence are needed to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on section 3.6 the site does not have significant sediment toxicity and the pollutant is not likely to cause or contribute to the toxic effect. The benthic community is not impacted. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The sediment quality guideline used complies with the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 3. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 4. Four of 8502 water samples were in exceedance of the water quality objective, and these do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The benthic community in this water body is not impacted.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   29162006State Reviewed pHFreshwater Replenishment Pollutant-WaterWaterNone1920Samples were collected monthly by the RWQCB at one station on the New River. During each monthly sample, automatic readings were taken each hour from 7 A.M. until 2 P.M. In evaluating the pH data, the daily maximum and minimum were compared to the criteria. A total of 192 readings were taken (on 24 dates). Assessing the data based on the daily maximum/minimum, there were 0 exceedances out of 24 days of measurements (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedColorado River RWQCB Basin Plan: Minimum = 6.0 s.u., Maximum = 9.0 s.u.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Unknown.Samples were collected monthly from 8/1/1995 to 7/8/1997.Flow, water temperature, DO, turbidity, and conductivity were all measured.QA/QC used by RWQCB staff. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183202012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.1, 3.6, and 3.9 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status while under section 3.9, a minimum of two lines of evidence are needed to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on section 3.6 the site does not have significant sediment toxicity and the pollutant is not likely to cause or contribute to the toxic effect. The benthic community is not impacted. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The sediment quality guideline used complies with the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 3. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 4. Four of 8502 water samples were in exceedance of the water quality objective, and these do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The benthic community in this water body is not impacted.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   29172006State Reviewed pHFreshwater Replenishment Pollutant-WaterWaterNone60123Samples were collected by the RWQCB during June of 1993 and May and July of 1999. There were a total of 6012 measurements over 39 days. The objective was exceeded a total of 16 times on 3 days (5/14/99, 7/8/99, and 7/16/99). Assessing the data based on the daily maximum/minimum this means there were 3 exceedances out of 39 days of measurements (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedColorado River RWQCB Basin Plan: Minimum = 6.0 s.u., Maximum = 9.0 s.u.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected on the New River at Mexicali.Measurements were taken multiple times each day during the following periods: 6/21/93-6/28/93, 5/1/99-5/14/99, and 7/7/99-7/11/99.Other information collected includes water temperature, conductivity, and DO.QA/QC used by RWQCB staff. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183202012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.1, 3.6, and 3.9 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status while under section 3.9, a minimum of two lines of evidence are needed to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on section 3.6 the site does not have significant sediment toxicity and the pollutant is not likely to cause or contribute to the toxic effect. The benthic community is not impacted. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The sediment quality guideline used complies with the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 3. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 4. Four of 8502 water samples were in exceedance of the water quality objective, and these do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The benthic community in this water body is not impacted.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   29182006State Reviewed pHFreshwater Replenishment Pollutant-WaterWaterNone21991A total of 2199 measurements were taken over 6 days in April and May of 1999 (4/28/99, 5/6/99, and 5/11/99-5/14/99). The maximum was exceeded 10 times in the 2199 measurements, however, the exceedances were all on one day (5/14/99). Assessing the data based on the daily maximum/minimum, there was 1 exceedance out of 6 days of measurements (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedColorado River RWQCB Basin Plan: Daily Minimum = 6.0 s.u., Daily Maximum = 9.0 s.u.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Unknown.Measurements were taken on 6 days in April and May of 1999 (4/28/99, 5/6/99, and 5/11-14/99). Measurements on the first two dates were taken in the morning and early afternoon. For the period of May 11 through May 14, measurements were taken every 2 minutes for the duration of those four days.Other parameters were measured, including water temperature, specific conductance, DO, turbidity, ORP, chloride, ammonium, and nitrate.QA/QC used by RWQCB staff. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183202012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.1, 3.6, and 3.9 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status while under section 3.9, a minimum of two lines of evidence are needed to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on section 3.6 the site does not have significant sediment toxicity and the pollutant is not likely to cause or contribute to the toxic effect. The benthic community is not impacted. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The sediment quality guideline used complies with the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 3. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 4. Four of 8502 water samples were in exceedance of the water quality objective, and these do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The benthic community in this water body is not impacted.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328082012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21871pHWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone110None of the 11 samples were outside the pH range specified in the water quality objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGBasin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected at stations: New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, and New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY.Data were collected 10/25/2005-10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183202012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.1, 3.6, and 3.9 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status while under section 3.9, a minimum of two lines of evidence are needed to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on section 3.6 the site does not have significant sediment toxicity and the pollutant is not likely to cause or contribute to the toxic effect. The benthic community is not impacted. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The sediment quality guideline used complies with the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 3. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 4. Four of 8502 water samples were in exceedance of the water quality objective, and these do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The benthic community in this water body is not impacted.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51172010State Reviewed pHWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved200Twenty water quality measurements were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 4 locations along the New River. Of these total measurements, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Measurements were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, at the Even Hewes Highway overpass near Seeley, CA, Drop 2, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Twenty measurements were collected. Measurements were generally collected and biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at the International Boundary and outlet to the Salton Sea location. The Even Hewes location was measured twice in 2002, once in 2003. The Drop 2 location was measured twice in 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183202012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.1, 3.6, and 3.9 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status while under section 3.9, a minimum of two lines of evidence are needed to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on section 3.6 the site does not have significant sediment toxicity and the pollutant is not likely to cause or contribute to the toxic effect. The benthic community is not impacted. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The sediment quality guideline used complies with the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 3. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 4. Four of 8502 water samples were in exceedance of the water quality objective, and these do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The benthic community in this water body is not impacted.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   53362010State Reviewed pHWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone3730Three hundred and seventy-three water quality measurements were taken at 4 locations in the river, generally collected from 10/1963 through 9/2002. Of these total measurements , none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Measurements were collected at the following New River location: USGS Station No. 10255550 located near Westmorland, Ca., USGS Station No. 330559115385601 at Lack Road near Calipatria, Ca, USGS Station No. 10255502 located at Drop 4 near Brawley, Ca, and USGS Station No. 10254970 near the International Boundary in Calexico, Ca.Three hundred seventy-three measurements were collected. Measurements were generally collected from 10/1963 through 9/2002. Eighty-one measurements were collected from 1963-1969, 221 measurements were collected from 1970-1979, 96 measurements were collected from 1980-1989, 1 measurement was collected from 1990-1999, and 3 measurements were collected from 2000-2002. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183202012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.1, 3.6, and 3.9 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status while under section 3.9, a minimum of two lines of evidence are needed to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on section 3.6 the site does not have significant sediment toxicity and the pollutant is not likely to cause or contribute to the toxic effect. The benthic community is not impacted. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The sediment quality guideline used complies with the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 3. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 4. Four of 8502 water samples were in exceedance of the water quality objective, and these do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The benthic community in this water body is not impacted.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   322902012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21643pHWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone952Out of the 44 samples, 5 were outside the range specified in the water quality objective.1.Data for bacteria and temperature in Alamo River, New River (Imperial County), and Tijuana River, Jan 2006-Mar. 2010PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGBasin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  New River at the International Boundary.Samples were collected monthly between 01/11/06 and 03/10/10. EnviroMatrix Analytical Inc. Quality Assurance Program Manual(Controlled Document Number EMA-100.8.0001).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial183202012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.1, 3.6, and 3.9 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status while under section 3.9, a minimum of two lines of evidence are needed to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on section 3.6 the site does not have significant sediment toxicity and the pollutant is not likely to cause or contribute to the toxic effect. The benthic community is not impacted. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The sediment quality guideline used complies with the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 3. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 4. Four of 8502 water samples were in exceedance of the water quality objective, and these do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The benthic community in this water body is not impacted.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   29192006State Reviewed pHFreshwater Replenishment Pollutant-WaterWaterNone810Samples were collected monthly by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) from 1998 through 2003. Samples were collected at one location on the New River. None of these 54 samples were in exceedance. Samples were also collected monthly in 1996. None of these 12 samples were in exceedance. Samples were collected once a month from January 1997 through March 1998. None of these 15 samples were in exceedance. Samples were also collected each month in 1999. Twenty samples were collected and there were 0 exceedances (CRBRWQCB, 2004c).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedColorado River RWQCB Basin Plan: Minimum = 6.0 s.u., Maximum = 9.0 s.u.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)  Samples were collected at the New River Salton Sea outlet for the 54 samples. The exact collection location(s) is unknown for the 12, 15 and 20 sample size collections.The 54 samples were taken monthly from 6/1/1998 through 1/12/2004. The 12 samples were collected monthly from 1/23/1996 through 12/17/1996. The 15 samples were collected once a month from 1/28/1997 through 3/17/1998. The 20 samples were collected from 1/21/1999 through 12/14/1999. Samples were collected once a month, except during April through September when there were 2 samples collected each month.For the 20 samples all measurements were taken at a depth of 0.5 meters. Samples were taken twice a month during the warmer months of April through September.Imperial Irrigation District (IID) SOPs. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside2892620121,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29601 received a use rating of insufficient information during last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Chloroform is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of four water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   296012010State Reviewed 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations, in the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas of Palo Verde (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chloroform, Methylene Bromide, Bromochloromethane, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane, 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropane, 2,2-Dichloropropane, or 1,1-Dichloropropene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon area.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas. Samples were generally collected in May and October of each year. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside2892620121,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29601 received a use rating of insufficient information during last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Chloroform is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of four water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   349992012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167669ChloroformCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Chloroform.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Chloroform criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 470 ug/L (The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria 2009).1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside2112820121,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49732010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 11 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside2112820121,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356502012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1681351,1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1, 2, 2-Tetrachloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 11 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside2135120121,1,2-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxcis Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347422012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674631,1,2-TrichloroethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 42 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside2135120121,1,2-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxcis Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49762010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside2112920121,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347772012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674741,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene ChlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1-Dichloroethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1-Dichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 3.2 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside2112920121,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49902010State Reviewed 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene ChlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Twelve water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 3.2 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Twelve water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside2898920121,2,3-Trichlorobenzene | Chloroethane | Dichlorodifluoromethane | Methyl chloride (Chloromethane) | cis-1,3-Dichloropropene | trans-1,3-Dichloropropene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane, Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, and 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane, Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane, Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298152010State Reviewed 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene | Chloroethane | Dichlorodifluoromethane | Methyl chloride (Chloromethane) | cis-1,3-Dichloropropene | trans-1,3-DichloropropeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved2 Two water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 2 locations, in the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas of Palo Verde (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon area.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002 from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside3100520121,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of four water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   348102012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674831,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2, 4-Trichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene is 70 ug/l for water and fish consumption.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside3013920121,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | Bromobenzene | Cumene | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) | n-Butylbenzene | n-Propylbenzene | sec-Butylbenzene | tert-Butylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, and tert-Butylbenzene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene or the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene or the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   295992010State Reviewed 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | Bromobenzene | Cumene | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) | n-Butylbenzene | n-Propylbenzene | sec-Butylbenzene | tert-ButylbenzeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations, in the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas of Palo Verde (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon area.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas. Samples were generally collected in May and October of each year. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside3013920121,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | Bromobenzene | Cumene | delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) | n-Butylbenzene | n-Propylbenzene | sec-Butylbenzene | tert-Butylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, and tert-Butylbenzene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene or the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of delta-BHC, Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 135-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene or the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299242010State Reviewed delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal8 Eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.No evaluation guidelines for the Salinity for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the two sampling locations. No samples were collected in October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside2167520121,2-Dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49752010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside2167520121,2-Dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347802012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675051,2-DichloroethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichloroethane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-Dichloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 99 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside3219420121,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of four water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347322012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675231,2-Dichloroethylene,-transCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-trans-dichlorethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-trans-dichlorethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 140,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside2167620121,2-Dichloropropane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49752010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside2167620121,2-Dichloropropane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   348002012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675141,2-DichloropropaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichloropropane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-Dichloropropane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 39 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside2914420121-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, and 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296042010State Reviewed 1-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | NaphthaleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations, in the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas of Palo Verde (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon area.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas. Samples were generally collected in May and October of each year. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside2914420121-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, and 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, Naphthalene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299272010State Reviewed 1-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | NaphthaleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the two sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside2912220121-Methylphenanthrene | Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Phenanthrene, and 1-Methylphenanthrene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296032010State Reviewed 1-Methylphenanthrene | PhenanthreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations, in the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas of Palo Verde (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon area.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas. Samples were generally collected in May and October of each year. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside2912220121-Methylphenanthrene | Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Phenanthrene, and 1-Methylphenanthrene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299262010State Reviewed 1-MethylphenanthreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the two sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside2892520122-Chlorotoluene | 4-Chlorotoluene | p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, and p-Cymene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296002010State Reviewed 2-Chlorotoluene | 4-Chlorotoluene | p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations, in the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas of Palo Verde (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon area.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas. Samples were generally collected in May and October of each year. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside2899820122-Hexanone | Acetone | Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) | Methyl isobutyl ketone (Methyl-2-Pentanone) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, and 2-Hexanone consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, or 2-Hexanone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, or 2-Hexanone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296192010State Reviewed 2-Hexanone | Acetone | Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) | Methyl isobutyl ketone (Methyl-2-Pentanone)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved2 Two water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 2 locations, in the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas of Palo Verde (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, or 2-Hexanone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon area.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002 from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212712012Acenaphthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 4975 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   49752010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside302662012Acenaphthene | Aldrin | Chlorpyrifos | Diazinon | Toxaphene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Acenaphthene, Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, and Toxaphene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299412010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Aldrin | Chlorpyrifos | Diazinon | ToxapheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the two sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside216772012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 46231 and 5567; LOE Nos. 35175 and 4971. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462312012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671481AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. Two composites (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside216772012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 46231 and 5567; LOE Nos. 35175 and 4971. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55672010State Reviewed AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal140Fourteen fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the Palo Verde outfall drain. Fish samples were generally collected from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS Tissue Guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Palo Verde area in the Outfall Drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected and analyzed annually from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Fourteen fish filet samples of largemouth bass, carp, Mozambique tilapia, channel catfish, and flathead catfish were collected. Four largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1995-96, 1998-1999. Five carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1986-87, 1991-1992, and 1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1987. Two channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in in the year 1986, and 1995. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 2000 and one flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside216772012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 46231 and 5567; LOE Nos. 35175 and 4971. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   348062012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167550AldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twelve samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Aldrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside216772012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 46231 and 5567; LOE Nos. 35175 and 4971. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351752012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167561AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Aldrin criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 3 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside216772012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 46231 and 5567; LOE Nos. 35175 and 4971. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49712010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1724 ug/l Chromium, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside290122012Aluminum | Manganese | Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as followsThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Aluminum, Manganese, and Silver consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299392010State Reviewed Aluminum | Manganese | SilverWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the two sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside291542012Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn | Terbutryn Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29613 received a use rating of insufficient information during last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Prometryn is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometryn and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355422012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168107PrometrynWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Prometryn.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometryn is 1 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside291542012Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn | Terbutryn Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29613 received a use rating of insufficient information during last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Prometryn is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometryn and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   296132010State Reviewed Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn | TerbutrynWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved8 Eight water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations, in the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas of Palo Verde (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, or Terbutryn for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon area.Eight water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas. Samples were generally collected in May and October of each year. Samples were not collected in from either site in 11/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211402012Anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of eight sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328032012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21803AnthraceneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Zero of the 8 samples collected for Anthracene (sum of c0-c4) exceed the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for anthracene in freshwater sediments is 845 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following stations: Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, and Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) (715CPVOD2).The samples were collected on 10/25/2005-4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211402012Anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of eight sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49752010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside289992012Anthracene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, and Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299352010State Reviewed Anthracene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Dibenz[a,h]anthraceneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the two sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside216782012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 35218 and 5101 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. None of 3 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352422012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167581ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe dissolved arsenic criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for dissolved arsenic is 0.150 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside216782012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 35218 and 5101 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. None of 3 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462322012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671482ArsenicCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. Two composites (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. Two samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for arsenic in fish tissue is 0.0034 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. It is assumed that 10% of the total arsenic is present as inorganic arsenic. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside216782012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 35218 and 5101 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. None of 3 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352182012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167574ArsenicWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for arsenic is 33 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside216782012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 35218 and 5101 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. None of 3 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54652010State Reviewed ArsenicCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal30Fourteen fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the lagoon area. Eleven fish fillet sample results could not be used in this assessment because the constituent was not analyzed in the samples. The 3 fish fillet samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 11/1998 through 11/2000 at one location. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 1 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the Palo Verde area in the Outfall Drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected at this location every yearly sampling round. Fourteen fish fillet composite samples of Mozambique tilapia, carp, largemouth bass, channel catfish and flathead catfish were collected. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite samples was collected in the year 1987. Five carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1986-87, 1991-92, and 1995. Four largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1995-96, and 1998-99. Two channel catfish fillet composite samples collected in the years 1986 and 1995. One flathead catfish fillet compsite sample was collected in the year 1992. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside216782012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 35218 and 5101 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. None of 3 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51012010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside216782012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 35218 and 5101 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. None of 3 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49712010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1724 ug/l Chromium, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside216782012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 35218 and 5101 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded either the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. None of 3 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49842010State Reviewed Arsenic | CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effects Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effects Criteria for the protection of aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 0.25 mg/l Arsenic, and 15 mg/l Copper (USDOI, 1998).1.Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside310062012Atrazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352852012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167591AtrazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Atrazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Atrazine is 43 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside289642012Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | Secbumeton Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29614 received a use rating of insufficient information during last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Prometon is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   296142010State Reviewed Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | SecbumetonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved8 Eight water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations, in the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas of Palo Verde (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Atroton, Prometon, or Secbumeton for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon area.Eight water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas. Samples were generally collected in May and October of each year. Samples were not collected in from either site in 11/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside289642012Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | Secbumeton Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29614 received a use rating of insufficient information during last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Prometon is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353692012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168099Prometon (Prometone)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Prometon.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon is 98 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside289362012Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29607 received a use rating of insufficient information during last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Aziphos-methyl (Guthion) is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twelve samples were collected for Aziphos-methyl (Guthion), but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Because of zero acceptable samples, staff canÂ’t determine if the water quality objectives are met.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   296072010State Reviewed Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations, in the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas of Palo Verde (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Azinphos, methyl, or Azinphos, ethyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon area.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas. Samples were generally collected in May and October of each year. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside289362012Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29607 received a use rating of insufficient information during last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Aziphos-methyl (Guthion) is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twelve samples were collected for Aziphos-methyl (Guthion), but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Because of zero acceptable samples, staff canÂ’t determine if the water quality objectives are met.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353102012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167600Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twelve samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Azinphos Methyl (Guthion) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is a maximum of 0.01 ug/l.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213382012Benzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   349922012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167614BenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Benzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Benzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 71 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213382012Benzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49782010State Reviewed BenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 71 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside215372012Benzo(a)anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5101 and 35333 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353332012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167607Benzo(a)anthraceneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Benz(a)anthracene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Benzo(a)anthracene is 1050 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside215372012Benzo(a)anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5101 and 35333 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51012010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside215372012Benzo(a)anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5101 and 35333 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49792010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Twelve water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Twelve water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212762012Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 4958 and 35183 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351832012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167623Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Benzo(a)pyrene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Benzo(a)Pyrene is 1450 ug/Kg dry weight (Macdonald et al. 2000)1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212762012Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 4958 and 35183 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49582010State Reviewed Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) of 1450 ug/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212762012Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 4958 and 35183 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49792010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Twelve water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Twelve water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside291532012Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | Terbufos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, and Terbufos consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299322010State Reviewed Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | BiphenylWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, or Tedion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the two sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside291532012Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | Terbufos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, and Terbufos consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296122010State Reviewed Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | TerbufosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations, in the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas of Palo Verde (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon area.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas. Samples were generally collected in May and October of each year. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside214502012Benzo[b]fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 4979 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   49792010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Twelve water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Twelve water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside290002012Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, and Benzo(k)Fluoranthene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299362010State Reviewed Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluorantheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the two sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212992012Benzo[k]fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 4979 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   49792010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Twelve water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Twelve water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside310072012Bifenthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twelve water samples were collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.4. None of 10 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463522012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000006BifenthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin. Twelve sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0006 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of bifenthrin does not exceed 0.0006 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.004 ug/L. Mixtures of bifenthrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside310072012Bifenthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twelve water samples were collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.4. None of 10 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354202012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168191BifenthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.43 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.43 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 2.Quality Assurance Project Plan for Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside289622012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29610 and 29930 received a use rating of insufficient information during last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Dacthal, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal, and none of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Dichlorvos. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dimethoate . These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   296102010State Reviewed Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | OxadiazonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations, in the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas of Palo Verde (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon area.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas. Samples were generally collected in May and October of each year. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside289622012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29610 and 29930 received a use rating of insufficient information during last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Dacthal, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal, and none of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Dichlorvos. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dimethoate . These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167744DichlorvosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Dichlorvos.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Dichlorvos is 7.2 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside289622012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29610 and 29930 received a use rating of insufficient information during last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Dacthal, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal, and none of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Dichlorvos. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dimethoate . These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   299302010State Reviewed Dacthal | Mirex | OxadiazonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Dacthal, Mirex, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the two sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside289622012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29610 and 29930 received a use rating of insufficient information during last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Dacthal, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal, and none of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Dichlorvos. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dimethoate . These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350072012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167723DacthalWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Dacthal.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal 6600 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside289622012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29610 and 29930 received a use rating of insufficient information during last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Dacthal, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal, and none of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Dichlorvos. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dimethoate . These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350122012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167777DimethoateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Dimethoate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dimethoate is 43 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside215382012Bromoform Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49752010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside215382012Bromoform Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352242012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167632BromoformCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Bromoform.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Bromoform criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 360 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside214022012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5101 and 35251 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration. None of 4 fish tissue samples exceeded Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49722010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside214022012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5101 and 35251 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration. None of 4 fish tissue samples exceeded Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54662010State Reviewed CadmiumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal20Fourteen fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the lagoon area. Twelve fish fillet sample results could not be used in this assessment because the constituent was not analyzed in the samples. The 2 fish fillet samples that were acceptable were generally collected in 11/1998 and 11/2000 at one location. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 3 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the Palo Verde area in the Outfall Drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected at this location every yearly sampling round. Fourteen fish fillet composite samples of Mozambique tilapia, carp, largemouth bass, channel catfish and flathead catfish were collected. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite samples was collected in the year 1987. Five carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1986-87, 1991-92, and 1995. Four largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1995-96, and 1998-99. Two channel catfish fillet composite samples collected in the years 1986 and 1995. One flathead catfish fillet compsite sample was collected in the year 1992. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside214022012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5101 and 35251 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration. None of 4 fish tissue samples exceeded Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51012010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside214022012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5101 and 35251 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration. None of 4 fish tissue samples exceeded Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462332012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671483CadmiumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. Two composites (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for cadmium in fish tissue is 2.2 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside214022012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5101 and 35251 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration. None of 4 fish tissue samples exceeded Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352512012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167644CadmiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for cadmium is 4.98 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside214022012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5101 and 35251 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the CTR criterion maximum concentration. None of 4 fish tissue samples exceeded Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328362012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21892CadmiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120None of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for cadmium.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 715CPVLG1 (Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)) and 715CPVOD2 (Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2)).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside291182012Carbon (organic) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Organic Carbon consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299432010State Reviewed Carbon (organic)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal11 Eleven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Eleven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the two sampling locations. An extra sample was collected from the Outfall Drain sampling location in October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213392012Carbon tetrachloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352902012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167651Carbon tetrachlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Carbon tetrachloride.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Carbon tetrachloride criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 4.4 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213392012Carbon tetrachloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49792010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Twelve water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Twelve water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside291452012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29605 and 29928 received a use rating of insufficient information during last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Malathion, Methidathion,Methyl Parathion, and Parathion are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion. None of 12 waater samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion, and none of eight sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) for Methyl Parathion. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Twelve water samples were collected for each of Malathion and Parathion, but none of them were used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Because of zero accepted samples, staff cannot determine if standards are met. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355272012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168003MethidathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Methidathion.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion is 0.86 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside291452012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29605 and 29928 received a use rating of insufficient information during last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Malathion, Methidathion,Methyl Parathion, and Parathion are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion. None of 12 waater samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion, and none of eight sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) for Methyl Parathion. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Twelve water samples were collected for each of Malathion and Parathion, but none of them were used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Because of zero accepted samples, staff cannot determine if standards are met. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355592012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168065ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twelve samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The criterion continuous concentration for Parathion, Ethyl is 0.013 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside291452012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29605 and 29928 received a use rating of insufficient information during last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Malathion, Methidathion,Methyl Parathion, and Parathion are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion. None of 12 waater samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion, and none of eight sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) for Methyl Parathion. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Twelve water samples were collected for each of Malathion and Parathion, but none of them were used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Because of zero accepted samples, staff cannot determine if standards are met. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354782012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168244Methyl ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for methyl parathion is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 6 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 6 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for methyl parathion from Ding et al. (2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside291452012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29605 and 29928 received a use rating of insufficient information during last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Malathion, Methidathion,Methyl Parathion, and Parathion are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion. None of 12 waater samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion, and none of eight sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) for Methyl Parathion. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Twelve water samples were collected for each of Malathion and Parathion, but none of them were used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Because of zero accepted samples, staff cannot determine if standards are met. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356102012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167975MalathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twelve samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The UC Davis Criteria for Malathion for the protection of aquatic organisms is a 4 day average of 0.028 ug/L.1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: l. Organophosphate insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:1-48.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside291452012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29605 and 29928 received a use rating of insufficient information during last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Malathion, Methidathion,Methyl Parathion, and Parathion are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion. None of 12 waater samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion, and none of eight sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) for Methyl Parathion. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Twelve water samples were collected for each of Malathion and Parathion, but none of them were used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Because of zero accepted samples, staff cannot determine if standards are met. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355982012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168073Methyl ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion is 0.08 ug/L.1.Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Methyl to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River SystemData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside291452012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29605 and 29928 received a use rating of insufficient information during last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Malathion, Methidathion,Methyl Parathion, and Parathion are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion. None of 12 waater samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion, and none of eight sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) for Methyl Parathion. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Twelve water samples were collected for each of Malathion and Parathion, but none of them were used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Because of zero accepted samples, staff cannot determine if standards are met. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   299282010State Reviewed Methyl Parathion | ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the two sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside291452012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29605 and 29928 received a use rating of insufficient information during last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Malathion, Methidathion,Methyl Parathion, and Parathion are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion. None of 12 waater samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion, and none of eight sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) for Methyl Parathion. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Twelve water samples were collected for each of Malathion and Parathion, but none of them were used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Because of zero accepted samples, staff cannot determine if standards are met. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   296052010State Reviewed Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | TokuthionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations, in the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas of Palo Verde (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon area.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas. Samples were generally collected in May and October of each year. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside215342012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4975 does not contain any information relevant to Chlordane, so, the LOE No. 4975 is not used in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 5575 and 46247 are combined for a use rating determination. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Accademy of Science fish tissue guideline. None of eight sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462342012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671484ChlordaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. Two composites (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside215342012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4975 does not contain any information relevant to Chlordane, so, the LOE No. 4975 is not used in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 5575 and 46247 are combined for a use rating determination. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Accademy of Science fish tissue guideline. None of eight sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   332502012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23458ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120None of the 12 samples exceeded the criterion continuous concentration for chlordane (total). Total chlordane is assessed as the sum of cis-chlordane, trans-chlordane, cis-nonachlor, trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe chlordane criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0043 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 715CPVLG1 Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)and 715CPVOD2 Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2)Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside215342012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4975 does not contain any information relevant to Chlordane, so, the LOE No. 4975 is not used in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 5575 and 46247 are combined for a use rating determination. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Accademy of Science fish tissue guideline. None of eight sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328512012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21820ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Zero of 8 samples collected for Chlordane (Sum of trans-Chlordane, cis-Chlordane, cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor, and Oxychlordane) exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Chlordane in freshwater sediments is 17.6 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside215342012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4975 does not contain any information relevant to Chlordane, so, the LOE No. 4975 is not used in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 5575 and 46247 are combined for a use rating determination. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Accademy of Science fish tissue guideline. None of eight sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55752010State Reviewed ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal140Fourteen fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the Palo Verde outfall drain. Fish samples were generally collected from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS Tissue Guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Palo Verde area in the Outfall Drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected and analyzed annually from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Fourteen fish filet samples of largemouth bass, carp, Mozambique tilapia, channel catfish, and flathead catfish were collected. Four largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1995-96, 1998-1999. Five carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1986-87, 1991-1992, and 1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1987. Two channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in in the year 1986, and 1995. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 2000 and one flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside215342012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4975 does not contain any information relevant to Chlordane, so, the LOE No. 4975 is not used in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 5575 and 46247 are combined for a use rating determination. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Accademy of Science fish tissue guideline. None of eight sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54562010State Reviewed ChlordaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal141Fourteen fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the Palo Verde outfall drain. Fish samples were generally collected from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, 1 exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. The exceedance was found in 1 channel catfish fillet composite sample collected on 4/14/1986 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 5.6 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the Palo Verde area in the Outfall Drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected and analyzed annually from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Fourteen fish filet samples of largemouth bass, carp, Mozambique tilapia, channel catfish, and flathead catfish were collected. Four largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1995-96, 1998-1999. Five carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1986-87, 1991-1992, and 1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1987. Two channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in in the year 1986, and 1995. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 2000 and one flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. An exceedance was found in a sample collected on 4/14/1986. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside215342012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4975 does not contain any information relevant to Chlordane, so, the LOE No. 4975 is not used in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 5575 and 46247 are combined for a use rating determination. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Accademy of Science fish tissue guideline. None of eight sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462472012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671485ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. Two composites (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside215342012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 4975 does not contain any information relevant to Chlordane, so, the LOE No. 4975 is not used in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 5575 and 46247 are combined for a use rating determination. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Accademy of Science fish tissue guideline. None of eight sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49752010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside289372012Chlorfenvinphos | Chlorpyrifos, methyl | Cuomaphos | Dicrotophos | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | Fenchlorphos | Leptophos | Merphos | Mevinphos | Tetrachlorvinphos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, and Chlorpyrifos Methyl consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296082010State Reviewed Chlorfenvinphos | Chlorpyrifos, methyl | Cuomaphos | Dicrotophos | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | Fenchlorphos | Leptophos | Merphos | Mevinphos | TetrachlorvinphosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations, in the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas of Palo Verde (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon area.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas. Samples were generally collected in May and October of each year. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside215392012Chlorobenzene (mono) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49752010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside215392012Chlorobenzene (mono) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353152012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167660Chlorobenzene (mono)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Chlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 21,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213402012Chlorpyrifos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5457 is replaced by the LOE No. 35425, which is assessed using the current evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5457 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 46248 and 46807 are combined for a use rating determination. Two of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Those two water sample exceedances were occurred on a single day, 5/2/2006, and the data is not temporally independent to be used in the assessment based on the section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy. So the LOE No. 35208 received a use rating of insufficient information.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used is not satified the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of two water samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, these two exceedances occurred on a single day, and the data is not temporally independent. According to Section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy, "If the majority of samples were collected on a single day, the data shall not be used as the primary data set supporting the listing decision." Thus, these two water sample exceedances were not used as supporting data to list this pollutant to the section 303(d) list. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   468072012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) ChlorpyrifosCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal140Fourteen fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the Palo Verde outfall drain. Fish samples were generally collected from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for chlorpyrifos in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisSamples were collected from the Palo Verde area in the Outfall Drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected and analyzed annually from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Fourteen fish filet samples of largemouth bass, carp, Mozambique tilapia, channel catfish, and flathead catfish were collected. Four largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1995-96, 1998-1999. Five carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1986-87, 1991-1992, and 1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1987. Two channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in in the year 1986, and 1995. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 2000 and one flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213402012Chlorpyrifos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5457 is replaced by the LOE No. 35425, which is assessed using the current evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5457 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 46248 and 46807 are combined for a use rating determination. Two of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Those two water sample exceedances were occurred on a single day, 5/2/2006, and the data is not temporally independent to be used in the assessment based on the section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy. So the LOE No. 35208 received a use rating of insufficient information.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used is not satified the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of two water samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, these two exceedances occurred on a single day, and the data is not temporally independent. According to Section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy, "If the majority of samples were collected on a single day, the data shall not be used as the primary data set supporting the listing decision." Thus, these two water sample exceedances were not used as supporting data to list this pollutant to the section 303(d) list. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354252012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168196ChlorpyrifosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for chlorpyrifos is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.77 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg and Weston, 2007).1.Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213402012Chlorpyrifos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5457 is replaced by the LOE No. 35425, which is assessed using the current evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5457 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 46248 and 46807 are combined for a use rating determination. Two of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Those two water sample exceedances were occurred on a single day, 5/2/2006, and the data is not temporally independent to be used in the assessment based on the section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy. So the LOE No. 35208 received a use rating of insufficient information.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used is not satified the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of two water samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, these two exceedances occurred on a single day, and the data is not temporally independent. According to Section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy, "If the majority of samples were collected on a single day, the data shall not be used as the primary data set supporting the listing decision." Thus, these two water sample exceedances were not used as supporting data to list this pollutant to the section 303(d) list. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352082012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167680ChlorpyrifosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal22Twelve samples total were collected. Two samples were detected at levels above the evaluation guideline resulting in 2 exceedances. Ten samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005).Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. Two exceedances were found in water samples collected on 5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213402012Chlorpyrifos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5457 is replaced by the LOE No. 35425, which is assessed using the current evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5457 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 46248 and 46807 are combined for a use rating determination. Two of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Those two water sample exceedances were occurred on a single day, 5/2/2006, and the data is not temporally independent to be used in the assessment based on the section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy. So the LOE No. 35208 received a use rating of insufficient information.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used is not satified the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of two water samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, these two exceedances occurred on a single day, and the data is not temporally independent. According to Section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy, "If the majority of samples were collected on a single day, the data shall not be used as the primary data set supporting the listing decision." Thus, these two water sample exceedances were not used as supporting data to list this pollutant to the section 303(d) list. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54572010State Reviewed ChlorpyrifosCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal140Fourteen fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the Palo Verde outfall drain. Fish samples were generally collected from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 10000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the Palo Verde area in the Outfall Drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected and analyzed annually from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Fourteen fish filet samples of largemouth bass, carp, Mozambique tilapia, channel catfish, and flathead catfish were collected. Four largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1995-96, 1998-1999. Five carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1986-87, 1991-1992, and 1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1987. Two channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in in the year 1986, and 1995. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 2000 and one flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213402012Chlorpyrifos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5457 is replaced by the LOE No. 35425, which is assessed using the current evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5457 is not included in the final use rating. LOE Nos. 46248 and 46807 are combined for a use rating determination. Two of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Those two water sample exceedances were occurred on a single day, 5/2/2006, and the data is not temporally independent to be used in the assessment based on the section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy. So the LOE No. 35208 received a use rating of insufficient information.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used is not satified the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of two water samples exceed the evaluation guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, these two exceedances occurred on a single day, and the data is not temporally independent. According to Section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy, "If the majority of samples were collected on a single day, the data shall not be used as the primary data set supporting the listing decision." Thus, these two water sample exceedances were not used as supporting data to list this pollutant to the section 303(d) list. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462482012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671486ChlorpyrifosCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. Two composites (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for chlorpyrifos in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212832012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determinatin. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352322012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167687ChromiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Chromium.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for chromium is 111 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212832012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determinatin. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   339262012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25784ChromiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120None of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for chromium III or the criteria for chromium VI.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each chromium III sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. The criterion continuous concentration (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for chromium VI is 11 ug/L and is not hardness dependent.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 715CPVLG1 (Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)) and 715CPVOD2 (Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2)).Samples collected between 10/25/05 and 10/28/08. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212832012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determinatin. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51012010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212832012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determinatin. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49712010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1724 ug/l Chromium, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside214032012Chrysene (C1-C4) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determiantion. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51012010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside214032012Chrysene (C1-C4) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determiantion. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49792010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Twelve water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Twelve water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside214032012Chrysene (C1-C4) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determiantion. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328712012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21826Chrysene (C1-C4)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Zero of 8 samples collected for Chrysene (Sum of c0-c3) exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Chrysene in freshwater sediments is 1290 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212012012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All of two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49182010State Reviewed CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon area.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, usually in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212012012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All of two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49842010State Reviewed Arsenic | CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effects Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effects Criteria for the protection of aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 0.25 mg/l Arsenic, and 15 mg/l Copper (USDOI, 1998).1.Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212012012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All of two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51012010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212012012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All of two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329002012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21917Copper, DissolvedWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved120None of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for copper.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 715CPVLG1 (Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)), and 715CPVOD2 (Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2)).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212012012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All of two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352982012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167705CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Copper.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for copper is 149 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside310092012Cyanazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50. However, this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353392012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167713CyanazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Cyanazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Cyanazine is 4.8 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside322002012Cyfluthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twelve water samples were collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.4. None of 10 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463212012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000014CyfluthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total. Twelve sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.00005 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of cyfluthrin does not exceed 0.00005 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.0003 ug/L. Mixtures of cyfluthrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside322002012Cyfluthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twelve water samples were collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.4. None of 10 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354322012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168203CyfluthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cyfluthrin from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside322012012Cyhalothrin, Lambda Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twelve water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.4. None of 10 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354572012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168209Cyhalothrin, LambdaWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.44 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.44 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for lambda-cyhalothrin from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside322012012Cyhalothrin, Lambda Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twelve water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.4. None of 10 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463432012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000022Cyhalothrin, LambdaWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, total. Twelve sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0005 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of lambda-cyhalothrin does not exceed 0.0005 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.001 ug/L. Mixtures of lambda-cyhalothrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside322482012Cypermethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twelve water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.4. None of 10 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354732012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168215CypermethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.3 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.3 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cypermethrin from Maund et al. (2002).1.Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside322482012Cypermethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twelve water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.4. None of 10 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463662012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000030CypermethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total. Twelve sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0002 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of cypermethrin does not exceed 0.0002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.001 ug/L. Mixtures of cypermethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside310102012Deltamethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database, maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC), and none of 10 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354902012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168221DeltamethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.79 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.79 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for deltamethrin from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside310102012Deltamethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database, maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC), and none of 10 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463372012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000038DeltamethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC) of 0.02 ug/L, which is the geometric mean of the LOEC and NOEC, as determined in a 280 day toxicity study with the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database)1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213752012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria, and none of eight sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). None of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54582010State Reviewed DiazinonCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal140Fourteen fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the Palo Verde outfall drain. Fish samples were generally collected from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 300 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the Palo Verde area in the Outfall Drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected and analyzed annually from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Fourteen fish filet samples of largemouth bass, carp, Mozambique tilapia, channel catfish, and flathead catfish were collected. Four largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1995-96, 1998-1999. Five carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1986-87, 1991-1992, and 1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1987. Two channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in in the year 1986, and 1995. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 2000 and one flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213752012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria, and none of eight sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). None of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462622012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671489DiazinonCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. Two composites (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for diazinon in fish tissue is 1,500 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213752012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria, and none of eight sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). None of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355062012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168226DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for diazinon is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 11 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 11 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for diazinon from Ding et al. (2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213752012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria, and none of eight sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). None of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352142012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167732DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Finlayson, 2004).1.Water quality for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and GameData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213752012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria, and none of eight sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). None of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49502010State Reviewed DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CDFG Hazardous Assessment Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Hazardous Assessment Criteria of 0.16 ug/l for the protection of aquatic life uses (Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000).1.Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and GameSamples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside294662012Dibenzothiophene | o-Xylene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Dibenzothiophene, and o-Xylene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene or the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene or the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299342010State Reviewed DibenzothiopheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the two sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside294662012Dibenzothiophene | o-Xylene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Dibenzothiophene, and o-Xylene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene or the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene or the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296182010State Reviewed Dibenzothiophene | o-XyleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved8 Eight water samples were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations, in the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas of Palo Verde (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fractions of Dibenzothiophene, or o-Xylene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon area.Eight water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from 10/2002 through 5/2004 from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas. Samples were generally collected in May and October of each year. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside291172012Dichlorobenzophenone | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene, and pp-DCBP consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene, or pp-DCBP for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene, or pp-DCBP for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299422010State Reviewed Dichlorobenzophenone | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene, or pp-DCBP for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the two sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213762012Dichlorobromomethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 4977 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   49772010State Reviewed DichlorobromomethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 46 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211312012Dichloromethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 4989 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   49892010State Reviewed DichloromethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water quality samples were collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 1600 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212842012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5593 and 46264 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science fish tissue guideline. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49712010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1724 ug/l Chromium, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212842012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5593 and 46264 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science fish tissue guideline. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55932010State Reviewed DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal140Fourteen fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the Palo Verde outfall drain. Fish samples were generally collected from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS Tissue Guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Palo Verde area in the Outfall Drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected and analyzed annually from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Fourteen fish filet samples of largemouth bass, carp, Mozambique tilapia, channel catfish, and flathead catfish were collected. Four largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1995-96, 1998-1999. Five carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1986-87, 1991-1992, and 1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1987. Two channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in in the year 1986, and 1995. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 2000 and one flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212842012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5593 and 46264 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science fish tissue guideline. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51012010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212842012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5593 and 46264 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science fish tissue guideline. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353462012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167768DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for dieldrin is 61.8 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212842012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5593 and 46264 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science fish tissue guideline. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353452012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167767DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Dieldrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212842012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5593 and 46264 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science fish tissue guideline. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352832012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167751DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twelve samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Dieldrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212842012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5593 and 46264 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science fish tissue guideline. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462642012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671491DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. Two composites (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212842012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5593 and 46264 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science fish tissue guideline. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671490DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. Two composites (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. Two samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211392012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 46276 and 5602 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded theNational Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines, and none of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   330922012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 24191EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120None of the 12 samples exceeded the criteria.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe endosulfan criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L. This value corresponds to the sum of alpha-endosulfan and beta-endosulfan (USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006).1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology  Samples were collected at stations 715CPVLG1 (Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)) and 715CPVOD2 (Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2)).Samples were collected on 10/25/2005, 5/2/2006, 5/8/2007, 10/23/2007, 4/22/2008, and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211392012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 46276 and 5602 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded theNational Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines, and none of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462652012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671492EndosulfanCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. Two composites (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in fish tissue is 13,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211392012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 46276 and 5602 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded theNational Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines, and none of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56022010State Reviewed EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal140Fourteen fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the Palo Verde outfall drain. Fish samples were generally collected from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS Tissue Guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Palo Verde area in the Outfall Drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected and analyzed annually from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Fourteen fish filet samples of largemouth bass, carp, Mozambique tilapia, channel catfish, and flathead catfish were collected. Four largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1995-96, 1998-1999. Five carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1986-87, 1991-1992, and 1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1987. Two channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in in the year 1986, and 1995. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 2000 and one flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211392012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 46276 and 5602 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded theNational Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines, and none of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462762012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671493EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. Two composites (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Endosulfan concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211392012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOEs 46276 and 5602 were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded theNational Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines, and none of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54592010State Reviewed EndosulfanCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal140Fourteen fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the Palo Verde outfall drain. Fish samples were generally collected from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 20,000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the Palo Verde area in the Outfall Drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected and analyzed annually from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Fourteen fish filet samples of largemouth bass, carp, Mozambique tilapia, channel catfish, and flathead catfish were collected. Four largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1995-96, 1998-1999. Five carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1986-87, 1991-1992, and 1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1987. Two channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in in the year 1986, and 1995. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 2000 and one flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211302012Endosulfan sulfate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350532012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167820Endosulfan sulfateCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan sulfate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan Sulfate criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211302012Endosulfan sulfate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49752010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside290112012Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, and Endosulfan Sulfate consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299372010State Reviewed Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the two sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside214012012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 4976 and 35062; LOE Nos. 5101 and 35077; LOE No. 5609 and 46278. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life use or human health when consuming organisms from these waters. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462782012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671495EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. Two composites (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside214012012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 4976 and 35062; LOE Nos. 5101 and 35077; LOE No. 5609 and 46278. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life use or human health when consuming organisms from these waters. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350772012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167846EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for sum of endrin is 207 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside214012012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 4976 and 35062; LOE Nos. 5101 and 35077; LOE No. 5609 and 46278. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life use or human health when consuming organisms from these waters. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350762012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167845EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.036 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside214012012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 4976 and 35062; LOE Nos. 5101 and 35077; LOE No. 5609 and 46278. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life use or human health when consuming organisms from these waters. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350622012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167829EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside214012012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 4976 and 35062; LOE Nos. 5101 and 35077; LOE No. 5609 and 46278. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life use or human health when consuming organisms from these waters. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56092010State Reviewed EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal140Fourteen fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the Palo Verde outfall drain. Fish samples were generally collected from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS Tissue Guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Palo Verde area in the Outfall Drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected and analyzed annually from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Fourteen fish filet samples of largemouth bass, carp, Mozambique tilapia, channel catfish, and flathead catfish were collected. Four largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1995-96, 1998-1999. Five carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1986-87, 1991-1992, and 1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1987. Two channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in in the year 1986, and 1995. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 2000 and one flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside214012012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 4976 and 35062; LOE Nos. 5101 and 35077; LOE No. 5609 and 46278. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life use or human health when consuming organisms from these waters. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54602010State Reviewed EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal140Fourteen fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the Palo Verde outfall drain. Fish samples were generally collected from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 1000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the Palo Verde area in the Outfall Drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected and analyzed annually from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Fourteen fish filet samples of largemouth bass, carp, Mozambique tilapia, channel catfish, and flathead catfish were collected. Four largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1995-96, 1998-1999. Five carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1986-87, 1991-1992, and 1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1987. Two channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in in the year 1986, and 1995. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 2000 and one flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside214012012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 4976 and 35062; LOE Nos. 5101 and 35077; LOE No. 5609 and 46278. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life use or human health when consuming organisms from these waters. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51012010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside214012012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 4976 and 35062; LOE Nos. 5101 and 35077; LOE No. 5609 and 46278. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life use or human health when consuming organisms from these waters. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49762010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside214012012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 4976 and 35062; LOE Nos. 5101 and 35077; LOE No. 5609 and 46278. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life use or human health when consuming organisms from these waters. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49712010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1724 ug/l Chromium, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside214012012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Ten lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 4976 and 35062; LOE Nos. 5101 and 35077; LOE No. 5609 and 46278. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life use or human health when consuming organisms from these waters. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Science fish tissue guidelines. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462772012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671494EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. Two composites (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211982012Endrin aldehyde Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49762010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211982012Endrin aldehyde Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350972012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167854Endrin aldehydeCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin Aldehyde.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endrin Aldehyde criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside322072012Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database median lethal concentration (LC50), and none of 10 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463592012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000046Esfenvalerate/FenvalerateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.13 ug/L, as determined in a 96 hour toxicity test using the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database)1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside322072012Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database median lethal concentration (LC50), and none of 10 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354472012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168233Esfenvalerate/FenvalerateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.5 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.5 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213612012Ethion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 5476 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   54762010State Reviewed EthionCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal140Fourteen fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the Palo Verde outfall drain. Fish samples were generally collected from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 2000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the Palo Verde area in the Outfall Drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected and analyzed annually from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Fourteen fish filet samples of largemouth bass, carp, Mozambique tilapia, channel catfish, and flathead catfish were collected. Four largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1995-96, 1998-1999. Five carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1986-87, 1991-1992, and 1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1987. Two channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in in the year 1986, and 1995. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 2000 and one flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211322012Ethylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49762010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211322012Ethylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351172012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167861EthylbenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Ethylbenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Ethylbenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 29,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside310112012Fenpropathrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50), and none of four sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). However, this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354502012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168236FenpropathrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for fenpropathrin from Ding et al. ( 2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/23/2007-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside310112012Fenpropathrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of six water samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50), and none of four sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). However, this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464502012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000054FenpropathrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin, 2.2 ug/L, is the median lethal concentration (LC50) as determined in a 96 hour toxicity test using the bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database)1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/23/2007-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211692012Fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49762010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211692012Fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355122012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168256FluorantheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Fluoranthene (sum of Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene/Pyrenes, C1-).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for fluoranthene is 2230 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211692012Fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51012010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212122012Fluorene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49762010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212122012Fluorene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51012010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212122012Fluorene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   325602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21863FluoreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Zero of 8 samples collected for fluorene (Sum of c0-c3) exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for fluorene in freshwater sediments is 536 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211992012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two fish tissue LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, and received fully supporting. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460912012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671498HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. Two composites (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211992012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two fish tissue LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, and received fully supporting. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56192010State Reviewed HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal140Fourteen fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the Palo Verde outfall drain. Fish samples were generally collected from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS Tissue Guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Palo Verde area in the Outfall Drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected and analyzed annually from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Fourteen fish filet samples of largemouth bass, carp, Mozambique tilapia, channel catfish, and flathead catfish were collected. Four largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1995-96, 1998-1999. Five carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1986-87, 1991-1992, and 1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1987. Two channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in in the year 1986, and 1995. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 2000 and one flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211992012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two fish tissue LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, and received fully supporting. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351612012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167913HeptachlorCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twelve samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00021 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211992012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two fish tissue LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, and received fully supporting. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49712010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1724 ug/l Chromium, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211992012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two fish tissue LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, and received fully supporting. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351112012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167924HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside215352012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 46093 and 5627 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. None of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167942Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor Epoxide criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside215352012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 46093 and 5627 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. None of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460932012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671500Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. Two composites (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside215352012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 46093 and 5627 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. None of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460922012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671499Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. Two composites (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. Two samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in fish tissue is 0.93 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking WaterData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside215352012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 46093 and 5627 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. None of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351292012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167931Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twelve samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor Epoxide criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00011 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside215352012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 46093 and 5627 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. None of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54612010State Reviewed Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal40Fourteen fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the Palo Verde outfall drain. Ten fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 4 acceptabe fish samples were generally collected from 11/1998 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 4 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the Palo Verde area in the Outfall Drain.Fish samples were generally collected and analyzed annually from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Fish samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Fourteen fish filet samples of largemouth bass, carp, Mozambique tilapia, channel catfish, and flathead catfish were collected. Four largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1995-96, 1998-1999. Five carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1986-87, 1991-1992, and 1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1987. Two channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in in the year 1986, and 1995. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 2000 and one flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside215352012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 46093 and 5627 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. None of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56272010State Reviewed Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal140Fourteen fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the Palo Verde outfall drain. Fish samples were generally collected from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS Tissue Guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Palo Verde area in the Outfall Drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected and analyzed annually from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Fourteen fish filet samples of largemouth bass, carp, Mozambique tilapia, channel catfish, and flathead catfish were collected. Four largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1995-96, 1998-1999. Five carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1986-87, 1991-1992, and 1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1987. Two channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in in the year 1986, and 1995. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 2000 and one flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside191852012Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Heptachlor, and Heptachlor Epoxide consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299382010State Reviewed Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the two sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211022012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and none of two fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355212012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167949Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twelve samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Hexachlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00077 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211022012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and none of two fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461732012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671501Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobenzene. Two composites (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue is 2.8 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211022012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline, and none of two fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54622010State Reviewed Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal140Fourteen fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the Palo Verde outfall drain. Fish samples were generally collected from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 20 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the Palo Verde area in the Outfall Drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected and analyzed annually from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Fourteen fish filet samples of largemouth bass, carp, Mozambique tilapia, channel catfish, and flathead catfish were collected. Four largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1995-96, 1998-1999. Five carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1986-87, 1991-1992, and 1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1987. Two channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in in the year 1986, and 1995. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 2000 and one flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside291162012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Methoxychlor | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, and Methoxychlor consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299402010State Reviewed Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Methoxychlor | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the two sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212942012Hexachlorobutadiene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355472012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167958HexachlorobutadieneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobutadiene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Hexachlorobutadiene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 50 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212942012Hexachlorobutadiene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49762010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside214492012Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 6730 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   67302010State Reviewed Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (mixture)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal140Fourteen fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the Palo Verde outfall drain. Fish samples were generally collected from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS Tissue Guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Palo Verde area in the Outfall Drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected and analyzed annually from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Fourteen fish filet samples of largemouth bass, carp, Mozambique tilapia, channel catfish, and flathead catfish were collected. Four largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1995-96, 1998-1999. Five carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1986-87, 1991-1992, and 1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1987. Two channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in in the year 1986, and 1995. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 2000 and one flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside291232012Hydroxide | Pheophytin a Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.7.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Hydroxide, or Pheophytin a consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.7.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Hydroxide, or Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Hydroxide, or Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296202010State Reviewed Hydroxide | Pheophytin aWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved2 Two water samples were collected in 5/2002 at 2 locations, in the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas of Palo Verde (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for Hydroxide, or Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon area.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 5/2002 from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211052012Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 4979 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   49792010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Carbon tetrachloride | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Twelve water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 4.4 ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Twelve water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212632012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, and received a fully supporting. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion continuous concentration. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355862012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167967LeadWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Lead.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for lead is 128 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212632012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, and received a fully supporting. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion continuous concentration. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329212012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21925LeadWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved120None of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for lead.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 715CPVLG1 (Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)) and 715CPVOD2 (Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2)).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212632012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, and received a fully supporting. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion continuous concentration. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51012010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212632012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, and received a fully supporting. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion continuous concentration. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49722010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212742012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5101 and 35141, LOE Nos. 46090 and 6736. Each set is assessed based on the same beneficial uses, same matrix, and the same water quailty objective. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guidelines. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351412012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167905Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Lindane (gamma-HCH) is 4.99 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212742012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5101 and 35141, LOE Nos. 46090 and 6736. Each set is assessed based on the same beneficial uses, same matrix, and the same water quailty objective. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guidelines. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51012010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212742012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5101 and 35141, LOE Nos. 46090 and 6736. Each set is assessed based on the same beneficial uses, same matrix, and the same water quailty objective. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guidelines. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462792012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671496Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. Two composites (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in fish tissue is 4.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212742012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5101 and 35141, LOE Nos. 46090 and 6736. Each set is assessed based on the same beneficial uses, same matrix, and the same water quailty objective. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guidelines. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351402012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167904Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe gamma-BHC (Lindane) criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.95 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212742012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5101 and 35141, LOE Nos. 46090 and 6736. Each set is assessed based on the same beneficial uses, same matrix, and the same water quailty objective. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guidelines. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350892012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167888Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe HCH, Gamma (Lindane) criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of organisms is 0.063 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212742012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5101 and 35141, LOE Nos. 46090 and 6736. Each set is assessed based on the same beneficial uses, same matrix, and the same water quailty objective. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guidelines. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   67362010State Reviewed Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal140Fourteen fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the Palo Verde outfall drain. Fish samples were generally collected from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS Tissue Guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Palo Verde area in the Outfall Drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected and analyzed annually from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Fourteen fish filet samples of largemouth bass, carp, Mozambique tilapia, channel catfish, and flathead catfish were collected. Four largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1995-96, 1998-1999. Five carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1986-87, 1991-1992, and 1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1987. Two channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in in the year 1986, and 1995. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 2000 and one flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212742012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5101 and 35141, LOE Nos. 46090 and 6736. Each set is assessed based on the same beneficial uses, same matrix, and the same water quailty objective. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guidelines. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54632010State Reviewed Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal140Fourteen fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the Palo Verde outfall drain. Fish samples were generally collected from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 30 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the Palo Verde area in the Outfall Drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected and analyzed annually from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Fourteen fish filet samples of largemouth bass, carp, Mozambique tilapia, channel catfish, and flathead catfish were collected. Four largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1995-96, 1998-1999. Five carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1986-87, 1991-1992, and 1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1987. Two channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in in the year 1986, and 1995. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 2000 and one flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212742012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two sets of LOEs are combined for a use rating determination: LOE Nos. 5101 and 35141, LOE Nos. 46090 and 6736. Each set is assessed based on the same beneficial uses, same matrix, and the same water quailty objective. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guidelines. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of 12 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460902012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671497Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. Two composites (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212002012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5101 and 35141are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46090 and 6736 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 25 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from these waters. None of 3 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461742012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671502MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. Fourteen composites were generated from one species: largemouth bass. Composites comprised of 1 fish per composite for 14 composites and 2 fish per composite for 2 composites. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish (150 - 500 mm; fillet wet weight) is 0.20 mg/kg.1.Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212002012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5101 and 35141are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46090 and 6736 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 25 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from these waters. None of 3 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356772012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167995MercuryWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for mercury is 1.06 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212002012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5101 and 35141are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46090 and 6736 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 25 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from these waters. None of 3 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356522012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167985MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved110Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 11 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Mercury criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.051 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212002012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5101 and 35141are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46090 and 6736 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 25 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from these waters. None of 3 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49762010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212002012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5101 and 35141are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46090 and 6736 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 25 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from these waters. None of 3 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51012010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212002012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5101 and 35141are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46090 and 6736 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 25 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from these waters. None of 3 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55612010State Reviewed MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal30Fourteen fish fillet samples and 4 whole fish samples were taken at 1 location in the lagoon area. Eleven fish fillet sample results could not be used in this assessment because the constituent was not analyzed in the samples. The 3 fish fillet samples that were acceptable were generally collected in (2)9/1992 and 11/2000 at one location. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 0.3 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the Palo Verde area in the Outfall Drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected at this location every yearly sampling round. Fourteen fish fillet composite samples of Mozambique tilapia, carp, largemouth bass, channel catfish and flathead catfish were collected. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite samples was collected in the year 1987. Five carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1986-87, 1991-92, and 1995. Four largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1995-96, and 1998-99. Two channel catfish fillet composite samples collected in the years 1986 and 1995. One flathead catfish fillet compsite sample was collected in the year 1992. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212002012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5101 and 35141are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46090 and 6736 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 25 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from these waters. None of 3 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   267212010State Reviewed MercuryWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NRWQC Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.4 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2002).1.National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside321962012Methoxychlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355542012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168014MethoxychlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Methoxychlor.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The criterion continuous concentration for Methoxychlor is 0.3 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside310122012Methyl Parathion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29928 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available, but an evaluation guideline for Methyl Parathion is available in current cycle. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 8 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50), and none of 12 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   299282010State Reviewed Methyl Parathion | ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the two sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside310122012Methyl Parathion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29928 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available, but an evaluation guideline for Methyl Parathion is available in current cycle. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 8 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50), and none of 12 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354782012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168244Methyl ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for methyl parathion is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 6 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 6 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for methyl parathion from Ding et al. (2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside310122012Methyl Parathion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 29928 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guideline were available, but an evaluation guideline for Methyl Parathion is available in current cycle. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 8 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50), and none of 12 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355982012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168073Methyl ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion is 0.08 ug/L.1.Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Methyl to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River SystemData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213902012Methyl bromide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 4982 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   49822010State Reviewed Methyl bromide | Vinyl chlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water quality samples were collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 4000 ug/l Methyl Bromide, and 525 ug/l Vinyl Chloride (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside310132012Mirex Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twelve water samples and two fish tissue samples were collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461752012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671503MirexCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Mirex. Two composites (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass. Two samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in fish tissue is 0.28 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside310132012Mirex Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twelve water samples and two fish tissue samples were collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355932012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168023MirexWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twelve samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The criterion continuous concentration for Mirex is 0.001 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside321972012Molinate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356362012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168033MolinateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Molinate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Molinate is 0.6 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213122012Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   325662012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21869NaphthaleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Zero of 8 samples collected for naphthalene (Sum of c0-c4) exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for naphthalene in freshwater sediments is 561 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213122012Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51012010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213132012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 4976 and 35679 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 35364 and 5101 are combined for a use rating determinatin as well. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life uses or human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49762010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213132012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 4976 and 35679 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 35364 and 5101 are combined for a use rating determinatin as well. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life uses or human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49722010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213132012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 4976 and 35679 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 35364 and 5101 are combined for a use rating determinatin as well. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life uses or human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51012010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213132012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 4976 and 35679 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 35364 and 5101 are combined for a use rating determinatin as well. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life uses or human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329412012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21932NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved120None of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for nickel.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 715CPVLG1 (Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)) and 715CPVOD2 (Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2)).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213132012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 4976 and 35679 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 35364 and 5101 are combined for a use rating determinatin as well. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life uses or human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353642012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168051NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for nickel is 48.6 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213132012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 4976 and 35679 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 35364 and 5101 are combined for a use rating determinatin as well. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting either aquatic life uses or human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 24 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356792012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168042NickelCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Nickel criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 4,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside310142012Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded USEPA Temperature and pH-Dependent values of the CCC. However, this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   345902012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 26209Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120None of the 12 samples exceed the water USEPA Temperature and pH-Dependent values of the CCC (Chronic Criterion) for Fish Early Life Stages Present for ammonia. 9 of these samples are reported as Detected Not Quantified (DNQ). These DNQ values are below the quantitation limit and are less than or equal to the water quality standard. These DNQ values will be considered as meeting the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGWater Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin Region (RWQCB 2006): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There is no water quality objective for ammonia in the Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin. Instead, the USEPA criteria for ammonia was used as Temperature and pH-Dependent Values of the CCC (Chronic Criterion)for Fish Early Life Stages Present.1.1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia  Samples collected at 715CPVLG1 [Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)] and 715CPVOD2 [Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2)]Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside289632012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29611 and 19931 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Phorate and Phosmet are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Phorate, and none of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   296112010State Reviewed Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | TrichloronateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations, in the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas of Palo Verde (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon area.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas. Samples were generally collected in May and October of each year. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside289632012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29611 and 19931 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Phorate and Phosmet are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Phorate, and none of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   299312010State Reviewed Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | TedionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, or Tedion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the two sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside289632012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29611 and 19931 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Phorate and Phosmet are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Phorate, and none of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356402012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168083PhorateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Phorate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Phorate is 2 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside289632012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29611 and 19931 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Phorate and Phosmet are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Phorate, and none of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet. These sample size are insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356662012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168091PhosmetWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Phosmet.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet is 5.6 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside310152012Oxygen, Dissolved Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective. However, this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328142012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21885Oxygen, DissolvedWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Zero of the twelve samples exceeded the water quality objective for dissolved oxygen.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGFrom the Colorado River Water Quality Control Plan 'The dissolved Oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below the following minimum levels at any time: for waters designated as WARM-5.0 mg/L.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Data were collected at the following station: Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 10/29/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside310162012PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of eight sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354672012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168278PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for fluoranthene is 2230 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213142012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5101 and 33422 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5639 and 46189 are combined for a use rating determination. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. One of 1 fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461892012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671505PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. Two composites (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total PCB concentration of 500 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213142012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5101 and 33422 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5639 and 46189 are combined for a use rating determination. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. One of 1 fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461762012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671504PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. Two composites (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: Largemouth Bass. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for polychlorinated biphenyls in fish tissue is 2.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213142012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5101 and 33422 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5639 and 46189 are combined for a use rating determination. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. One of 1 fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51012010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213142012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5101 and 33422 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5639 and 46189 are combined for a use rating determination. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. One of 1 fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56392010State Reviewed PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal140Fourteen fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the Palo Verde outfall drain. Fish samples were generally collected from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS Tissue Guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 500 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Palo Verde area in the Outfall Drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected and analyzed annually from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Fourteen fish filet samples of largemouth bass, carp, Mozambique tilapia, channel catfish, and flathead catfish were collected. Four largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1995-96, 1998-1999. Five carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1986-87, 1991-1992, and 1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1987. Two channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in in the year 1986, and 1995. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 2000 and one flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213142012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5101 and 33422 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5639 and 46189 are combined for a use rating determination. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. One of 1 fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   215002010State Reviewed PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal11Fourteen fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the Palo Verde outfall drain. Thirteen fish fillet sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 1 acceptabe fish sample was collected on 10/25/1995 at 1 location. This sample exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. The exceedance was found in 1 carp fillet composite sample collected on 10/25/1995 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 3.6 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the Palo Verde area in the Outfall Drain.Fish samples were generally collected and analyzed annually from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Fish samples were not collected from this location every sampling round. Fourteen fish filet samples of largemouth bass, carp, Mozambique tilapia, channel catfish, and flathead catfish were collected. Four largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1995-96, 1998-1999. Five carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1986-87, 1991-1992, and 1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1987. Two channel catfish fillet composite samples were collected in the year 1986, and 1995. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 2000, and one flathead catfish fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1992. An exceedance was found in a sample collected on 10/25/1995. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213142012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5101 and 33422 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5639 and 46189 are combined for a use rating determination. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. One of 1 fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   334162012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23415PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40None of the 4 samples exceeded the criterion continuous concentration for total PCB. The water body was assessed for the 3 aroclors that were contained within the data set and they include aroclor 1248, aroclor 1254, and aroclor 1260.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe total PCB criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.014 ug/L. This value corresponds to the sum of aroclors 1242, 1254, 1221, 1232, 1248, 1260, and 1016 (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 715CPVLG1 (Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)) and 715CPVOD2 (Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2)).Samples collected between 4/22/2008 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213142012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5101 and 33422 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5639 and 46189 are combined for a use rating determination. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. One of 1 fish tissue sample exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   334222012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23834PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Zero of 8 samples collected for Total PCBs exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total PCB is 676 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following stations 715CPVLG1 (Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)) and 715CPVOD2 (Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2)).The samples were collected on 10/25/2005, 5/2/2006, 10/23/2007 and 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside322492012Permethrin, total Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Eight water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.4. None of 10 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354952012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168250Permethrin, totalWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 8.9 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for permethrin from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside322492012Permethrin, total Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Eight water samples were collected, but the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.4. None of 10 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464582012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000062Permethrin, totalWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total. Eight sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.002 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of permethrin does not exceed 0.002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.01 ug/L. Mixtures of permethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/23/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213152012Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51012010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213152012Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328262012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21809PhenanthreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Zero of 8 samples collected for Phenanthrene (sum of c0-c4) exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Phenanthrene in freshwater sediments is 1170 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following stations: Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, and Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside289872012Propazine | Terbuthylazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29615 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Propazine is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   296152010State Reviewed Propazine | TerbuthylazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved8 Eight water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations, in the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas of Palo Verde (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Propazine, or Terbuthylazine for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon area.Eight water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas. Samples were generally collected in May and October of each year. Samples were not collected in from either site in 11/2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside289872012Propazine | Terbuthylazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29615 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Propazine is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355832012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168115PropazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Propazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Propazine is 25 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212752012Pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49762010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212752012Pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51012010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , and 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212752012Pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 22 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354412012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168263PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Pyrene (sum of Pyrene and Fluoranthene/Pyrenes, C1-).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for pyrene is 1520 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside291242012Salinity Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Salinity consistent with Listing Policy section 3.2. No evaluation guideline for Salinity for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for Salinity for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296212010State Reviewed SalinityWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved6 Six water samples were collected from 4/2003 through 5/2004 at 2 locations, in the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas of Palo Verde (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for Salinity for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon area.Six water samples were collected. Water samples were collected in 4/2003, 11/2003, and 5/2004 from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211702012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two tissue LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the tissue samples exceed the water quality objective. There were a total of eleven sediment samples collected. However, no evaluation guideline for the fraction of selenium associated with sediment could be found that protects human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters and meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because of this, Line of Evidence No. 29944 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461902012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671506SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. Two composites (6 fish per composite) were generated from one species: largemouth bass.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenium in fish tissue is 7.4 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A background dietary consumption rate of 0.114 mg/day is applied for this micronutrient.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected on a single day 12/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211702012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two tissue LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the tissue samples exceed the water quality objective. There were a total of eleven sediment samples collected. However, no evaluation guideline for the fraction of selenium associated with sediment could be found that protects human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters and meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because of this, Line of Evidence No. 29944 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54672010State Reviewed SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal140Fourteen fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the lagoon area. The samples were generally collected from 4/1986 and 11/2000 at one location. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 7400 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the Palo Verde area in the Outfall Drain.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 4/1986 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected at this location every yearly sampling round. Fourteen fish fillet composite samples of Mozambique tilapia, carp, largemouth bass, channel catfish and flathead catfish were collected. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite samples was collected in the year 1987. Five carp fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1986-87, 1991-92, and 1995. Four largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1995-96, and 1998-99. Two channel catfish fillet composite samples collected in the years 1986 and 1995. One flathead catfish fillet compsite sample was collected in the year 1992. One flathead catfish single fish fillet sample was collected in the year 2000. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211702012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two tissue LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the tissue samples exceed the water quality objective. There were a total of eleven sediment samples collected. However, no evaluation guideline for the fraction of selenium associated with sediment could be found that protects human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters and meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because of this, Line of Evidence No. 29944 received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 16 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   299442010State Reviewed SeleniumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal11 Eleven sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Selenium for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Eleven sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the two sampling locations. An extra sample was collected from the Outfall Drain sampling location in October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211062012Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49722010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211062012Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21939SilverWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120None of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for silver.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion maximum concentrations (1-hour average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 715CPVLG1 (Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)) and 715CPVOD2 (Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2)).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside321982012Simazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356262012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168128SimazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Simazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Simazine is 90 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside291552012Streptococcus, fecal Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess fecal Streptococcus consistent with Listing Policy section 3.3. No evaluation guidelines for the total density of fecal Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the total density of fecal Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296172010State Reviewed Streptococcus, fecalWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal8 Eight water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at 2 locations, in the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas of Palo Verde (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon area.Eight water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 11/2003 from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas. Samples were generally collected in May and October of each year. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212952012Tetrachloroethylene/PCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49762010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside212952012Tetrachloroethylene/PCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353752012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168144Tetrachloroethylene/PCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Tetrachloroethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Tetrachloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 8.85 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside321992012Thiobencarb/Bolero Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 12 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353852012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168154Thiobencarb/BoleroWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Thiobencarb.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Thiobencarb is 1.4 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213082012Toluene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49762010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213082012Toluene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353942012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168163TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Toluene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Toluene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 200,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside289882012Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel is used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics.No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296162010State Reviewed Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as DieselWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved8 Eight water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at 2 locations, in the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas of Palo Verde (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel, used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics (dro), for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon area.Eight water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 11/2003 from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas. Samples were generally collected in May and October of each year. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside289882012Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel is used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics.No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299332010State Reviewed Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as DieselWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal8 Eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel, used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics (dro), for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 11/2003 from the two sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside310172012Toxicity Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three water samples and one sediment sample exceed the water quality objective. Those three water sample exceedances were occurred on a single day, 10/25/2005, and the data is not temporally independent to be used in the assessment based on the section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy. So the LOE No. 32025 received a use rating of insufficient information.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used is not satisfied the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Three of 15 water samples exhibit toxicity when compared to control samples and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, these three exceedances occurred on a single day, and the data is not temporally independent. According to Section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy, "If the majority of samples were collected on a single day, the data shall not be used as the primary data set supporting the listing decision." Thus, these three water sample exceedances were not used as supporting data to list this pollutant on the section 303(d) list. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   320262012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 20283ToxicityWarm Freshwater Habitat ToxicitySedimentNone61Six samples were collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. One of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008TOXICITY TESTINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 7 Basin Plan.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S eguals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL equals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance.1.Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064The samples were collected at stations 715CPVLG1 and 715CPVOD2.The samples were collected in May and October 2007 and April 2008. Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and follwed SWAMP protocols.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside310172012Toxicity Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three water samples and one sediment sample exceed the water quality objective. Those three water sample exceedances were occurred on a single day, 10/25/2005, and the data is not temporally independent to be used in the assessment based on the section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy. So the LOE No. 32025 received a use rating of insufficient information.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used is not satisfied the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Three of 15 water samples exhibit toxicity when compared to control samples and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, these three exceedances occurred on a single day, and the data is not temporally independent. According to Section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy, "If the majority of samples were collected on a single day, the data shall not be used as the primary data set supporting the listing decision." Thus, these three water sample exceedances were not used as supporting data to list this pollutant on the section 303(d) list. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   320252012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 20278ToxicityWarm Freshwater Habitat ToxicityWaterNone153Fifteen samples were collected to evaluate water toxicity. Three of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival and reproductions of Ceriodaphnia dubia and survival and biomass of Pimephales promelas. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008TOXICITY TESTINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 7 Basin Plan.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S eguals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL equals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance.1.Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013The samples were collected at stations 715CPVLG1 and 715CPVOD2.The samples were collected from October 2005 to 2008 during the months of April, May and October. Three exceedances were found in water samples collected on 10/25/2005. Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and follwed SWAMP protocols.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213602012Trichloroethylene/TCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354032012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168172Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Trichloroethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Trichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 81 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213602012Trichloroethylene/TCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49762010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Ethylbenzene | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Mercury | Nickel | Pyrene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 0.051 ug/l Mercury, 4600 ug/l Nickel, 11000 ug/l Pyrene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside213912012Vinyl chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of LOE No. 4982 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. According to the Listing Policy, a minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.  49822010State Reviewed Methyl bromide | Vinyl chlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20Two water quality samples were collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 4000 ug/l Methyl Bromide, and 525 ug/l Vinyl Chloride (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Two water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211072012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 4966 and 35414 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria maximum concentration. None of 24 sediment samples exceed the sediment quality guideline. These does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49662010State Reviewed ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) of 459 mg/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211072012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 4966 and 35414 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria maximum concentration. None of 24 sediment samples exceed the sediment quality guideline. These does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354142012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168185ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal100Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for zinc is 459 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211072012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 4966 and 35414 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria maximum concentration. None of 24 sediment samples exceed the sediment quality guideline. These does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   325692012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21945ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120None of the 12 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for zinc.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 715CPVLG1 (Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)) and 715CPVOD2 (Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2)).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211072012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 4966 and 35414 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria maximum concentration. None of 24 sediment samples exceed the sediment quality guideline. These does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49722010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | Silver | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside291142012alpha-Chlordene | gama-Chlordene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess alpha-Chlordene, and gamma-Chlordene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene or the sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene or the sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299292010State Reviewed alpha-Chlordene | gama-ChlordeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the two sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside291142012alpha-Chlordene | gama-Chlordene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess alpha-Chlordene, and gamma-Chlordene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene or the sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene or the sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296062010State Reviewed alpha-Chlordene | gama-ChlordeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations, in the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas of Palo Verde (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon area.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas. Samples were generally collected in May and October of each year. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside216102012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 4975 and 35019 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350192012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167784alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan I criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside216102012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 4975 and 35019 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350292012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167795alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan I criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for alpha-endosulfan is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside216102012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 4975 and 35019 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49712010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1724 ug/l Chromium, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside216102012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 4975 and 35019 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49752010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside214172012alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two line of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351372012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167870Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), alphaCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, alpha.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe BHC, alpha criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.013 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside214172012alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two line of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49752010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside215682012beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49752010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside215682012beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351702012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167879Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), betaCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, Beta.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe BHC, beta criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.046 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside216212012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 4975 and 35036 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration protecting aquatic life uses. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350462012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167813beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan II criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for beta-endosulfan is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2), Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside216212012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 4975 and 35036 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration protecting aquatic life uses. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49752010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside216212012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 4975 and 35036 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration protecting aquatic life uses. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49712010State Reviewed Aldrin | Arsenic | Chlordane | Chromium (total) | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 340 ug/l Arsenic, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1724 ug/l Chromium, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside216212012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 4975 and 35036 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 14 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criterion maximum concentration protecting aquatic life uses. None of 26 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350362012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167802beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal120Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 12 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan II criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside289352012cis-Nonachlor | trans-Nonachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess cis-Nonachlor, and trans-Nonachlor consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor or the sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor or the sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299252010State Reviewed cis-Nonachlor | trans-NonachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10 Ten sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Ten sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the two sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside289352012cis-Nonachlor | trans-Nonachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess cis-Nonachlor, and trans-Nonachlor consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor or the sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor or the sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296022010State Reviewed cis-Nonachlor | trans-NonachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations, in the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas of Palo Verde (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon area.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas. Samples were generally collected in May and October of each year. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211002012m-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347532012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675321, 3 -dichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 2,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211002012m-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49752010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside291152012o,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)) | o,p'-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | o,p'-DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | p,p'-DDMU Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, and p,p'-DDMU consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   296092010State Reviewed o,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)) | o,p'-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | o,p'-DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | p,p'-DDMUWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved10 Ten water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at 2 locations, in the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas of Palo Verde (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon area.Ten water samples were collected. Water samples were collected from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas. Samples were generally collected in May and October of each year. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside310182012o-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of four water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347472012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167496o-DichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 17,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211012012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49752010State Reviewed 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) | m-Dichlorobenzene | p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved140Fourteen water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l p-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, and 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Fourteen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside211012012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs assessed for COMM were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 18 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347862012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675411, 4 -dichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 2,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Palo Verde Outfall Drain and Lagoon was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1, Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-5/2/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside215982012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 24 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51152010State Reviewed pHWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved120Twelve water quality measurements were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at two locations in the Palo Verde area. Of these total measurements, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Measurements were collected from the Outfall Drain and Lagoon areas.Twelve water meaurements were collected. Measurements were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 10/2004. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside215982012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 24 water samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 26 samples is needed for application of table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328092012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21872pHWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone120None of the 12 samples were outside the pH range specified in the water quality objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGBasin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected at stations: Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2) - 715CPVOD2, and Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1) - 715CPVLG1.Data were collected 10/25/2005-10/29/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionRamer LakeCAL7231000020000127132824Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000074,18100204001519181002040705Imperial307822012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464302012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671684AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ramer Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Ramer Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ramer Lake - 723PRL075]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionRamer LakeCAL7231000020000127132824Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000074,18100204001519181002040705Imperial322092012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two line of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation or the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464382012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671685ChlordaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ramer Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Ramer Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ramer Lake - 723PRL075]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionRamer LakeCAL7231000020000127132824Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000074,18100204001519181002040705Imperial322092012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two line of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation or the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464392012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671686ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ramer Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Ramer Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ramer Lake - 723PRL075]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionRamer LakeCAL7231000020000127132824Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000074,18100204001519181002040705Imperial307852012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two line of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462852012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671690DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ramer Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Ramer Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ramer Lake - 723PRL075]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionRamer LakeCAL7231000020000127132824Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000074,18100204001519181002040705Imperial307852012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two line of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462842012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671689DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ramer Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Ramer Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ramer Lake - 723PRL075]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionRamer LakeCAL7231000020000127132824Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000074,18100204001519181002040705Imperial322102012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two line of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation or the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463802012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671693EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ramer Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Ramer Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ramer Lake - 723PRL075]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionRamer LakeCAL7231000020000127132824Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000074,18100204001519181002040705Imperial322102012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two line of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation or the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463882012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671694EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ramer Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Ramer Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ramer Lake - 723PRL075]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionRamer LakeCAL7231000020000127132824Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000074,18100204001519181002040705Imperial322082012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463972012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671697HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ramer Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Ramer Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ramer Lake - 723PRL075]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionRamer LakeCAL7231000020000127132824Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000074,18100204001519181002040705Imperial322112012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two line of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation or the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463992012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671699Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ramer Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Ramer Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ramer Lake - 723PRL075]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionRamer LakeCAL7231000020000127132824Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000074,18100204001519181002040705Imperial322112012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two line of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation or the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463982012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671698Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ramer Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in fish tissue is 0.93 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking WaterData for this line of evidence for Ramer Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ramer Lake - 723PRL075]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionRamer LakeCAL7231000020000127132824Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000074,18100204001519181002040705Imperial322122012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464062012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671700Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ramer Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobenzene. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue is 2.8 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Ramer Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ramer Lake - 723PRL075]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionRamer LakeCAL7231000020000127132824Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000074,18100204001519181002040705Imperial322152012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline or the modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463902012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671696Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ramer Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Ramer Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ramer Lake - 723PRL075]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionRamer LakeCAL7231000020000127132824Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000074,18100204001519181002040705Imperial322152012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline or the modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463892012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671695Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ramer Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in fish tissue is 4.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Ramer Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ramer Lake - 723PRL075]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionRamer LakeCAL7231000020000127132824Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000074,18100204001519181002040705Imperial307832012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464072012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671701MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ramer Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. Composites were generated from two species: common carp (2 composites - 5 fish per composite) and black crappie (2 composites - 5 fish per composite). The composites were not spatially independent and so were averaged for each species. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish (150 - 500 mm; fillet wet weight) is 0.20 mg/kg.1.Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001Data for this line of evidence for Ramer Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ramer Lake - 723PRL075]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionRamer LakeCAL7231000020000127132824Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000074,18100204001519181002040705Imperial322132012Mirex Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3 One fish tissue sample was collected, but the result was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464142012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671702MirexCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ramer Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Mirex. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in fish tissue is 0.28 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens.Data for this line of evidence for Ramer Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ramer Lake - 723PRL075]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionRamer LakeCAL7231000020000127132824Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000074,18100204001519181002040705Imperial322162012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline or the modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464152012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671703PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ramer Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for polychlorinated biphenyls in fish tissue is 2.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Ramer Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ramer Lake - 723PRL075]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionRamer LakeCAL7231000020000127132824Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000074,18100204001519181002040705Imperial322162012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline or the modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464222012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671704PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ramer Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total PCB concentration of 500 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Ramer Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ramer Lake - 723PRL075]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionRamer LakeCAL7231000020000127132824Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000074,18100204001519181002040705Imperial322142012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464232012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671705SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ramer Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. The 1 sample for common carp consisted of 2 composites (5 fish per composite) that were not independent and so were averaged. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenium in fish tissue is 7.4 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A background dietary consumption rate of 0.114 mg/day is applied for this micronutrient.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Ramer Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ramer Lake - 723PRL075]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionRamer LakeCAL7231000020000127132824Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000074,18100204001519181002040705Imperial307862012Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline or the modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464472012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671688Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ramer Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Ramer Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ramer Lake - 723PRL075]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionRamer LakeCAL7231000020000127132824Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000074,18100204001519181002040705Imperial307862012Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline or the modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464462012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671687Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ramer Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Ramer Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ramer Lake - 723PRL075]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionRamer LakeCAL7231000020000127132824Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000074,18100204001519181002040705Imperial322172012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline or the modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463782012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671691alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ramer Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in fish tissue is 13,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Ramer Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ramer Lake - 723PRL075]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionRamer LakeCAL7231000020000127132824Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000074,18100204001519181002040705Imperial322172012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline or the modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463792012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671692alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Ramer Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Endosulfan concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Ramer Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Ramer Lake - 723PRL075]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalt CreekCAR7250000020000127095057River & Stream 10725.000000,10728.00000018100204001722,18100204001841,18100204001907,18100204001950,18100204002047,18100204002096,18100204002104,18100204002110,18100204002151,18100204002160,(Total Count: 57)181002040603,181002040604,181002040605,181002040607,181002040608,181002041003,181002041400Riverside212152012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 5446 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   54462010State Reviewed SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal20Two whole fish samples were collected on 7/07/1987 at one location. Out of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 7400 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from Salt Creek at the mouth to the Salton Sea.Two whole fish samples of redbelly tilapia and longjaw mudsucker were collected. The fish samples were both collected on 7/07/1987. One redbelly tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected on 7/07/1987. One longjaw mudsucker whole fish composite sample was collected on 7/07/1987. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside2965220121,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29896 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Chlorform is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Chlorform and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   298962010State Reviewed 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved21 Twenty-one water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at six locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chloroform, Methylene Bromide, Bromochloromethane, Ethylene Dibromide, 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane, 1,2-Dibromo 3-Chloropropane, 1,3-Dichloropropane, 2,2-Dichloropropane, or 1,1-Dichloropropene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS9.Twenty-one water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations. The location Salton Sea NW1 was sampled in May and September of 2002. The sampling location NW2 was samples in April and November of 2003, and May of 2004. The sampling location GS3 was only sampled once in October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside2965220121,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane | 1,1-Dichloropropene | 1,2,3-Trichloropropane | 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) | 1,3-Dichloropropane | 2,2-Dichloropropane | Bromochloromethane | Chloroform | Ethylene dibromide | Methylene bromide (Dibromomethane) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29896 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Chlorform is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Chlorform and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350002012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167670ChloroformCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Chloroform.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Chloroform criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 470 ug/L (The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria 2009).1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside2165320121,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50842010State Reviewed 1,1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved290Twenty-nine water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at six locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 11 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS9.Twenty-nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside2165320121,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356682012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1681361,1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1, 2, 2-Tetrachloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 11 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside2131120121,1,2-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347432012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674641,1,2-TrichloroethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1, 2-Trichloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 42 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside2131120121,1,2-Trichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50912010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Ethylbenzene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | m-DichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved290Twenty-nine water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at six locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS9.Twenty-nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside2165420121,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 33 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50952010State Reviewed 1,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene ChlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved250Twenty-five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at six locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 3.2 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS9.Twenty-five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside2165420121,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene Chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 33 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347782012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674751,1-Dichloroethylene (DCE)/ Vinylidene ChlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 1-Dichloroethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 1-Dichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 3.2 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside2938120121,2,3-Trichlorobenzene | Chloroethane | Dichlorodifluoromethane | Methyl chloride (Chloromethane) | cis-1,3-Dichloropropene | trans-1,3-Dichloropropene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, and 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299192010State Reviewed 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene | Chloroethane | Dichlorodifluoromethane | Methyl chloride (Chloromethane) | cis-1,3-Dichloropropene | trans-1,3-DichloropropeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved4 Four water quality samples were collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at four locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Methyl Chloride, Chloroethane Dichlorodifluoromethane, cis-1,3-Dichloropropene, trans-1,3-Dichloropropene, or 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS9.Four water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 from the Salton Sea NW1, GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside3115220121,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of eight water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   348112012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1674841,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2, 4-Trichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene is 70 ug/l for water and fish consumption.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside2965020121,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | Bromobenzene | Cumene | n-Butylbenzene | n-Propylbenzene | sec-Butylbenzene | tert-Butylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, and tert-Butylbenzene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298942010State Reviewed 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | Bromobenzene | Cumene | n-Butylbenzene | n-Propylbenzene | sec-Butylbenzene | tert-ButylbenzeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved21 Twenty-one water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at six locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Bromobenzene, 1,2,4-Trimethybenzene, 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene, Cumene, n-Propylbenzene, n-Butylbenzene, sec-Butylbenzene, or tert-Butylbenzene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS9.Twenty-one water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations. The location Salton Sea NW1 was sampled in May and September of 2002. The sampling location NW2 was samples in April and November of 2003, and May of 2004. The sampling location GS3 was only sampled once in October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside2147520121,2-Dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50912010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Ethylbenzene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | m-DichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved290Twenty-nine water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at six locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS9.Twenty-nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside2147520121,2-Dichloroethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347812012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675061,2-DichloroethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichloroethane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-Dichloroethane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 99 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside3221820121,2-Dichloroethylene,-trans Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of eight water samples exceeded the CTR criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347332012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675241,2-Dichloroethylene,-transCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-trans-dichlorethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-trans-dichlorethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 140,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside2147620121,2-Dichloropropane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50912010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Ethylbenzene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | m-DichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved290Twenty-nine water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at six locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS9.Twenty-nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside2147620121,2-Dichloropropane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   348012012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675151,2-DichloropropaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichloropropane.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-Dichloropropane criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 39 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside2937120121-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Naphthalene, Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, and 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Naphthalene, Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Naphthalene, Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298992010State Reviewed 1-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | NaphthaleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved28 Twenty-eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Naphthalene, Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The locations Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 were sampled in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside2937120121-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | Acenaphthylene | Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Naphthalene, Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, and 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Naphthalene, Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Naphthalene, Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene or the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300802010State Reviewed 1-Methylnaphthalene | 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene | 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene | 2-Methylnaphthalene | AcenaphthyleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal28 Twenty-eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthylene, 1-Methylnaphthalene, 2-Methynaphthalene, 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene, or 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations. The Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 sampling locations were sampled in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside2937020121-Methylphenanthrene | Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Phenanthrene, and 1-Methylphenanthrene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300792010State Reviewed 1-MethylphenanthreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal28 Twenty-eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations. The Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 sampling locations were sampled in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside2937020121-Methylphenanthrene | Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Phenanthrene, and 1-Methylphenanthrene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene or the sediment fraction of 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298982010State Reviewed 1-Methylphenanthrene | PhenanthreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved28 Twenty-eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Phenanthrene, or 1-Methylphenanthrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The locations Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 were sampled in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside2965120122-Chlorotoluene | 4-Chlorotoluene | p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, and p-Cymene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298952010State Reviewed 2-Chlorotoluene | 4-Chlorotoluene | p-Cymene (p-Isopropyltoluene)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved21 Twenty-one water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at six locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of 2-Chlorotoluene, 4-Chlorotoluene, or p-Cymene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS9.Twenty-one water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations. The location Salton Sea NW1 was sampled in May and September of 2002. The sampling location NW2 was samples in April and November of 2003, and May of 2004. The sampling location GS3 was only sampled once in October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside2938320122-Hexanone | Acetone | Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) | Methyl isobutyl ketone (Methyl-2-Pentanone) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, 2-Hexanone, and Methyl Ethyl Ketone consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, 2-Hexanone, or Methyl Ethyl Ketone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, 2-Hexanone, or Methyl Ethyl Ketone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299212010State Reviewed 2-Hexanone | Acetone | Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) | Methyl isobutyl ketone (Methyl-2-Pentanone)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved4 Four water quality samples were collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at four locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Acetone, Methyl Isobutyl Ketone, 2-Hexanone, or Methyl Ethyl Ketone for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS9.Four water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 from the Salton Sea NW1, GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213922012Acenaphthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50882010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Pyrene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside295282012Acenaphthene | Dichlorobenzophenone | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Acenaphthene, pp-DCBP, and Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, pp-DCBP, or Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, pp-DCBP, or Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300962010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Dichlorobenzophenone | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal28 Twenty-eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Acenaphthene, pp-DCBP, or Indeno(1,2,3,c,d)Pyrene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations. The Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 sampling locations were sampled in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside206482012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 35176 and 5083 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46424 and 5570 are combined for a use rating determination. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. One of one water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55702010State Reviewed AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal310Thirty-one fish fillet samples were taken at 3 locations in the sea. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Salton Sea locations: from the North end, the South end, and the West Side.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty-one fish fillet samples of tilapia, bairdiella, orangemouth corvina, redbelly tilapia, Mozambique tilapia, and sargo were collected. Nine tilapia fillet composites samples were collected in the years 1984-85, (2)1996, 1997, (2)1998, and (2)2000. Five bairdiella fillet composite samples were collected in 1980, 1985, (2)1989, and 2000. Ten orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1981, 1984-87, (2)1991, 1997, and 1999. Two orangemouth corvina single fish fillet samples were collected in the year (2)1991. Two redbelly tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1980. Two sargo fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, and 1991. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside206482012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 35176 and 5083 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46424 and 5570 are combined for a use rating determination. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. One of one water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   348072012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167551AldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twenty samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Aldrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside206482012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 35176 and 5083 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46424 and 5570 are combined for a use rating determination. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. One of one water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50832010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside206482012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 35176 and 5083 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46424 and 5570 are combined for a use rating determination. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. One of one water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351762012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167562AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Aldrin criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 3 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, Salton Sea USGS9, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside206482012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 35176 and 5083 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46424 and 5570 are combined for a use rating determination. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. One of one water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   48752010State Reviewed AldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved11Thirty-six water samples were taken at eight locations on the sea. Thirty-five water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water sample, collected from the Northwest section of the Salton Sea near Mecca, Ca (NW2) on 5/13/2002, exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.00014 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside206482012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 35176 and 5083 are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46424 and 5570 are combined for a use rating determination. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. One of one water sample exceeded the CTR criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guidelines. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464242012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671706AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: Tilapia leucosticta. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Salton Sea - 728PSS171]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside295362012Aldrin | Chlorpyrifos | Diazinon | Toxaphene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, Toxaphene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300952010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlorpyrifos | Diazinon | ToxapheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal28 Twenty-eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aldrin, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, or Toxaphene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations. The Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 sampling locations were sampled in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside295342012Aluminum | Manganese | Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Aluminum, Manganese, and Silver consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300922010State Reviewed Aluminum | Manganese | SilverWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal28 Twenty-eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Aluminum, Manganese, or Silver for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations. The Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 sampling locations were sampled in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside294012012Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn | Terbutryn Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29910 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Prometryn is available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometryn and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168108PrometrynWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Prometryn.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometryn is 1 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside294012012Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn | Terbutryn Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29910 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Prometryn is available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometryn and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   299102010State Reviewed Ametryn | Prometryn | Simetryn | TerbutrynWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved24 Twenty-four water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ametryn, Prometryn, Simetryn, or Terbutryn for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. Samples were not collected in November of 2003. The locations Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 were sampled in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214532012Anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50882010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Pyrene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214532012Anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328042012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21804AnthraceneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Zero of the 14 samples collected for Anthracene (sum of c0-c4) exceed the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for anthracene in freshwater sediments is 845 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following stations: Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2, Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09.The samples were collected on 10/26/2005-4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside295272012Anthracene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, and Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300882010State Reviewed Anthracene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Dibenz[a,h]anthraceneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal28 Twenty-eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Anthracene, Benz(a)Anthracene, or Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations. The Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 sampling locations were sampled in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside311532012Atrazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352862012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167592AtrazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Atrazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Atrazine is 43 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside294022012Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | Secbumeton Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29911 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Prometon is available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353702012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168100Prometon (Prometone)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Prometon.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon is 98 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside294022012Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | Secbumeton Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29911 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Prometon is available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Prometon and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   299112010State Reviewed Atroton | Prometon (Prometone) | SecbumetonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved24 Twenty-four water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Atroton, Prometon, or Secbumeton for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. Samples were not collected in November of 2003. The locations Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 were sampled in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside296182012Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29902 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty samples for Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Because of zero acceptable samples, staff cannot determine if water quality objecitve is met.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353112012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167601Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twenty samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Azinphos Methyl (Guthion) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is a maximum of 0.01 ug/l.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, Salton Sea USGS9, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside296182012Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29902 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twenty samples for Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Because of zero acceptable samples, staff cannot determine if water quality objecitve is met.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   299022010State Reviewed Azinphos, Ethyl (Ethyl Guthion) | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved28 Twenty-eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Azinphos, methyl, or Azinphos, ethyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The locations Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 were sampled in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214082012Benzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   349932012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167615BenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Benzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Benzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 71 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214082012Benzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50942010State Reviewed BenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved290Twenty-nine water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at six locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 71 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS9.Twenty-nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214642012Benzo(a)anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353512012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167608Benzo(a)anthraceneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Benz(a)anthracene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Benzo(a)anthracene is 1050 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, Salton Sea USGS9, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214642012Benzo(a)anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50922010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved280Twenty-eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213032012Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 50 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351842012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167624Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Benzo(a)pyrene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Benzo(a)Pyrene is 1450 ug/Kg dry weight (Macdonald et al. 2000)1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, Salton Sea USGS9, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213032012Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 50 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49652010State Reviewed Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal360Thirty-six sediment quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 8 locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) of 1450 ug/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213032012Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 50 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50922010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved280Twenty-eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside293902012Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | Terbufos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, and Terbufos consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299082010State Reviewed Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | TerbufosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved28 Twenty-eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The locations Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 were sampled in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside293902012Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | Biphenyl | Terbufos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, and Terbufos consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, Biphenyl, or Terbufos or the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300852010State Reviewed Benzo(e)Pyrene (4,5-benzopyrene) | Benzo[g,h,i]perylene | BiphenylWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal28 Twenty-eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(e)Pyrene, or Biphenyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations. The Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 sampling locations were sampled in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213002012Benzo[b]fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50922010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved280Twenty-eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside293962012Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, and Benzo(k)Fluoranthene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300892010State Reviewed Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluorantheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal28 Twenty-eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Benzo(b)Fluoranthene, or Benzo(k)Fluoranthene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations. The Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 sampling locations were sampled in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213012012Benzo[k]fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50922010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved280Twenty-eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside311542012Bifenthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Twenty water samples were collected, but results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.4. None of 17 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463532012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000007BifenthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin. Twenty sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0006 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of bifenthrin does not exceed 0.0006 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.004 ug/L. Mixtures of bifenthrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside311542012Bifenthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Twenty water samples were collected, but results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.4. None of 17 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354172012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168188BifenthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 17 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.43 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.43 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 2.Effect of sediment-associated pyrethroids, fipronil, and metabolites on Chironomus tentans growth rate, body mass, condition index, immobilization, and survival. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 27(12):2582-2590.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside296322012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29905 and 30083 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Dacthal, Dichlorvos, and Dimethoate are available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for either Dacthal or Dimethoate. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Dichlorvos. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352612012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167745DichlorvosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Dichlorvos.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Dichlorvos is 7.2 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside296322012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29905 and 30083 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Dacthal, Dichlorvos, and Dimethoate are available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for either Dacthal or Dimethoate. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Dichlorvos. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   300832010State Reviewed Dacthal | Mirex | OxadiazonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal28 Twenty-eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Dacthal, Mirex, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations. The Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 sampling locations were sampled in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside296322012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29905 and 30083 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Dacthal, Dichlorvos, and Dimethoate are available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for either Dacthal or Dimethoate. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Dichlorvos. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350132012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167778DimethoateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Dimethoate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dimethoate is 43 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside296322012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29905 and 30083 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Dacthal, Dichlorvos, and Dimethoate are available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for either Dacthal or Dimethoate. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Dichlorvos. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351912012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167724DacthalWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Dacthal.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Dacthal 6600 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside296322012Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | Oxadiazon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29905 and 30083 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Dacthal, Dichlorvos, and Dimethoate are available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for either Dacthal or Dimethoate. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Dichlorvos. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   299052010State Reviewed Bolstar | Chlordane | Ciodrin | Dacthal | Demeton s | Dichlorvos | Dimethoate | Disulfoton | Endrin Ketone | Ethoprop | Famphur | Mirex | Naled | OxadiazonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved28 Twenty-eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlordane, Bolstar, Ciodrin, Dacthal, Demeton s, Dichlorvos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Endrin Ketone, Ethoprop, Famphur, Mirex, Naled, or Oxadiazon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The locations Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 were sampled in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214192012Bromoform Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50912010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Ethylbenzene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | m-DichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved290Twenty-nine water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at six locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS9.Twenty-nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214192012Bromoform Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352252012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167633BromoformCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Bromoform.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Bromoform criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 360 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216692012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 66 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of eight fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55072010State Reviewed CadmiumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal80Thiry-five fish fillet samples were taken at 3 locations in the sea. Twenty-seven fish fillet sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample were not analyzed for the analyte. The 8 fish fillet samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 8/1985 through 11/2000 at two locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 3 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Salton Sea locations: from the North end, the South end, and the West Side.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1984 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty five fish fillet samples of bairdiella, orangemouth corvina, redbelly tilapia, tilapia, and sargo were collected.Five bairdiella fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, 1987, (2)1989, and 2000. Ten orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1984-87, (4)1991, 1997, and 1999. Six orangemouth corvine single fish fillet samples were collected in the year (6)1986. Two redbelly tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in year (2)1995. Nine tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985,1987, (2)1996, 1997, (2)1998, and (2)2000. Three sargo fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, 1987, and 1991. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216692012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 66 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of eight fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352682012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167645CadmiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 17 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for cadmium is 4.98 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, Salton Sea USGS9, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216692012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 66 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of eight fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328522012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21893CadmiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal Dissolved200None of the 20 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for cadmium.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 728SSDNW2 (Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2), 728SSGS02 (Salton Sea USGS2), 728SSGS07 (Salton Sea USGS7), and 728SSGS09 (Salton Sea USGS9).Samples collected between 10/26/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216692012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 66 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of eight fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50782010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216692012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 66 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of eight fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51092010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal360Thirty-six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216692012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 66 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of eight fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52872010State Reviewed CadmiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal130Thirteen sediment quality samples were taken at 10 locations in the Salton Sea, collected between 7/1998 and 10/2001. Out of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 4.98 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following Salton Sea locations: USGS Station No. 333006116031501 near the mouth of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel, USGS Station No. 332958116023501 in the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel Delta, USGS Station No. 332908116011501 between North Basin and Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel, USGS Station No. 332637115512001 in Salt Creek Delta, USGS Station No. 331400115450001 near center of South Basin, USGS Station No. 331215115410001 between South Basin and New and Alamo River Deltas, USGS Station No. 330835115434501 in New River Delta, USGS Station No. 331023115473701 in San Felipe Creek Delta, USGS Station No. 330803115414001 near the mouth of New River, and USGS Station No. 331242115371401 near the mouth of Alamo River.Thirteen samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 7/1998 through 10/2001. Seven samples were in 1998, 1 sample was collected in 1999, no samples were collected in 2000, and 5 samples were collected in 2001. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside295292012Carbon (organic) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess organic Carbon consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved sediment fraction of organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300972010State Reviewed Carbon (organic)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal29 Twenty-nine sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Organic Carbon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-nine sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations. An extra sample was collected and analyzed from the Salton Sea GS9 sampling location in September of 2002. The Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 sampling locations were sampled in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214732012Carbon tetrachloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 33 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352912012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167652Carbon tetrachlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Carbon tetrachloride.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Carbon tetrachloride criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 4.4 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214732012Carbon tetrachloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 33 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50962010State Reviewed Carbon tetrachlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved250Twenty-five water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at six locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 4.4 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS9.Twenty-five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside301382012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29900 and 30081 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Malathion, Methidathion, and Parathion are available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Each twenty samples for Malathion and Parathion were collected, but all the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.4. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion and this do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   299002010State Reviewed Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | TokuthionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved28 Twenty-eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Ethion, Carbophenothion, Dichlofenthion, Dioxathion, Parathion, Fenitrothion, Fensulfothion, Fenthion, Malathion, Methidathion, Methyl Parathion, or Tokuthion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The locations Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 were sampled in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside301382012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29900 and 30081 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Malathion, Methidathion, and Parathion are available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Each twenty samples for Malathion and Parathion were collected, but all the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.4. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion and this do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   300812010State Reviewed Methyl Parathion | ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal28 Twenty-eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Parathion, or Methyl Parathion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations. The Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 sampling locations were sampled in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside301382012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29900 and 30081 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Malathion, Methidathion, and Parathion are available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Each twenty samples for Malathion and Parathion were collected, but all the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.4. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion and this do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355282012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168004MethidathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Methidathion.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion is 0.86 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside301382012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29900 and 30081 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Malathion, Methidathion, and Parathion are available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Each twenty samples for Malathion and Parathion were collected, but all the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.4. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion and this do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355762012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168066ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twenty samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The criterion continuous concentration for Parathion, Ethyl is 0.013 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, Salton Sea USGS9, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside301382012Carbophenothion | Dichlofenthion | Dioxathion | Ethion | Fenitrothion | Fensulfothion | Fenthion | Malathion | Methidathion | Methyl Parathion | Parathion | Tokuthion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE Nos. 29900 and 30081 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Malathion, Methidathion, and Parathion are available in current assessment cycle, and none of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Each twenty samples for Malathion and Parathion were collected, but all the results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.4. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Methidathion and this do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356112012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167976MalathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twenty samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The UC Davis Criteria for Malathion for the protection of aquatic organisms is a 4 day average of 0.028 ug/L.1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: l. Organophosphate insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:1-48.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, Salton Sea USGS9, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside222352012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5578 and 46432 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. None of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464322012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671708ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: Tilapia leucosticta. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Salton Sea - 728PSS171]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside222352012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5578 and 46432 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. None of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464312012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671707ChlordaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: Tilapia leucosticta. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Salton Sea - 728PSS171]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside222352012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5578 and 46432 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. None of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328662012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21821ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Zero of 14 samples collected for Chlordane (Sum of trans-Chlordane, cis-Chlordane, cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor, and Oxychlordane) exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Chlordane in freshwater sediments is 17.6 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following stations: Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2, Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, .The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside222352012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5578 and 46432 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. None of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55782010State Reviewed ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal310Thirty-one fish fillet samples were taken at 3 locations in the sea. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Salton Sea locations: from the North end, the South end, and the West Side.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty-one fish fillet samples of tilapia, bairdiella, orangemouth corvina, redbelly tilapia, Mozambique tilapia, and sargo were collected. Nine tilapia fillet composites samples were collected in the years 1984-85, (2)1996, 1997, (2)1998, and (2)2000. Five bairdiella fillet composite samples were collected in 1980, 1985, (2)1989, and 2000. Ten orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1981, 1984-87, (2)1991, 1997, and 1999. Two orangemouth corvina single fish fillet samples were collected in the year (2)1991. Two redbelly tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1980. Two sargo fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, and 1991. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside222352012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5578 and 46432 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. None of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55122010State Reviewed ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10One sediment sample was taken at 1 location in the sea. The sediment sample was collected on 12/10/1987. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Chemical monitoring of sedimentsBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effect Concentration (PEC) of 17.6 ug/g for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects(Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31A sample was collected from the south end of the Salton Sea.One sediment sample was collected on 12/10/87 . The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside222352012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5578 and 46432 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. None of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54952010State Reviewed ChlordaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal50Thirty-one fish fillet samples were taken at 3 locations in the sea. Twenty-six fish sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 5 acceptabe fish fillet samples were generally collected from 5/1981 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 5.6 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the following Salton Sea locations: from the North end, the South end, and the West Side.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty-one fish fillet samples of tilapia, bairdiella, orangemouth corvina, redbelly tilapia, Mozambique tilapia, and sargo were collected. Nine tilapia fillet composites samples were collected in the years 1984-85, (2)1996, 1997, (2)1998, and (2)2000. Five bairdiella fillet composite samples were collected in 1980, 1985, (2)1989, and 2000. Ten orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1981, 1984-87, (2)1991, 1997, and 1999. Two orangemouth corvina single fish fillet samples were collected in the year (2)1991. Two redbelly tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1980. Two sargo fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, and 1991. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside222352012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 5578 and 46432 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. None of 15 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50832010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside296302012Chlorfenvinphos | Chlorpyrifos, methyl | Cuomaphos | Dicrotophos | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | Fenchlorphos | Leptophos | Merphos | Mevinphos | Tetrachlorvinphos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, and Chlorpyrifos Methyl consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299032010State Reviewed Chlorfenvinphos | Chlorpyrifos, methyl | Cuomaphos | Dicrotophos | Dyfonate (Fonofos or Fonophos) | Fenchlorphos | Leptophos | Merphos | Mevinphos | TetrachlorvinphosWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved28 Twenty-eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Chlorfenvinphos, Cuomaphos, Dicrotophos, Fenchchlorphos, Dyfonate, Leptophos, Merphos, Mevinphos, Tetrachlorvinphos, or Chlorpyrifos Methyl for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The locations Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 were sampled in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214202012Chlorobenzene (mono) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50912010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Ethylbenzene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | m-DichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved290Twenty-nine water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at six locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS9.Twenty-nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214202012Chlorobenzene (mono) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353162012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167661Chlorobenzene (mono)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Chlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 21,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside212312012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 67 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352332012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167688ChromiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 17 samples exceed the criterion for Chromium.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for chromium is 111 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, Salton Sea USGS9, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside212312012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 67 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50772010State Reviewed Chromium (total)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1724 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside212312012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 67 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51092010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal360Thirty-six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside212312012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 67 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   339272012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25785ChromiumWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved200None of the 20 samples exceeded the hardness based criteria calculated for chromium III or the criteria for chromium VI.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGCalifornia Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each chromium III sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. The criterion continuous concentration (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for chromium VI is 11 ug/L and is not hardness dependent.1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 728SSDNW2 (Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2), 728SSGS02 (Salton Sea USGS2), 728SSGS07 (Salton Sea USGS07) and , 728SSGS09 (Salton Sea USGS9).Samples collected between 10/26/05 and 10/28/08. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside212312012Chromium (total) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 67 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52442010State Reviewed Chromium (total)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were taken at 11 locations in the Salton Sea, generally collected from 7/1998 through 10/2001. Of these total samples , none exceeded the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 111 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following Salton Sea locations: USGS Station No. 333006116031501 near the mouth of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel, USGS Station No. 332958116023501 in the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel Delta, USGS Station No. 332908116011501 between North Basin and Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel, USGS Station No. 332637115512001 in Salt Creek Delta, USGS Station No. 331400115380001 in Alamo River Delta, USGS Station No. 331400115450001 near center of South Basin, USGS Station No. 331215115410001 between South Basin and New and Alamo River Deltas, USGS Station No. 330835115434501 in New River Delta, USGS Station No. 331023115473701 in San Felipe Creek Delta, USGS Station No. 330803115414001 near the mouth of New River, and USGS Station No. 331242115371401 near the mouth of Alamo River.Fourteen samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 7/1998 through 10/2001. Seven samples were collected in 1998, 1 samples was collected in 1999, no samples were collected in 2000, and 6 samples were collected in 2001. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside215072012Chrysene (C1-C4) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 50 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50922010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved280Twenty-eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside215072012Chrysene (C1-C4) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 50 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51092010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal360Thirty-six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside215072012Chrysene (C1-C4) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 50 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328722012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21827Chrysene (C1-C4)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Zero of 14 samples collected for Chrysene (Sum of c0-c3) exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Chrysene in freshwater sediments is 1290 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following stations: Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2, Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, .The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside215082012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 66 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52882010State Reviewed CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal130Thirteen sediment quality samples were taken at 10 locations in the Salton Sea, collected between 7/1998 and 10/2001. Out of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 149 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following Salton Sea locations: USGS Station No. 333006116031501 near the mouth of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel, USGS Station No. 332958116023501 in the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel Delta, USGS Station No. 332908116011501 between North Basin and Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel, USGS Station No. 332637115512001 in Salt Creek Delta, USGS Station No. 331400115450001 near center of South Basin, USGS Station No. 331215115410001 between South Basin and New and Alamo River Deltas, USGS Station No. 330835115434501 in New River Delta, USGS Station No. 331023115473701 in San Felipe Creek Delta, USGS Station No. 330803115414001 near the mouth of New River, and USGS Station No. 331242115371401 near the mouth of Alamo River.Thirteen samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 7/1998 through 10/2001. Seven samples were in 1998, 1 sample was collected in 1999, no samples were collected in 2000, and 5 samples were collected in 2001. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside215082012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 66 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352992012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167706CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 17 samples exceed the criterion for Copper.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for copper is 149 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, Salton Sea USGS9, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside215082012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 66 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51092010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal360Thirty-six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside215082012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 66 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50992010State Reviewed Arsenic | CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the USFWS Biological Effects Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Effects Criteria for the protection of aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 0.25 mg/l Arsenic, and 15 mg/l Copper (USDOI, 1998).1.Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biological Effect of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. US Department of Interior report.Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside215082012Copper Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 66 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49492010State Reviewed CopperWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thiry-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside311692012Cyanazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of three water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50. This sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353402012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167714CyanazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal30Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Cyanazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Cyanazine is 4.8 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09]Data was collected on a single day 10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside311702012Cyfluthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Those three water sample exceedances were occurred on a single day, 10/24/2007, and the data is not temporally independent to be used in the assessment based on the section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy. So the LOE No. 46322 received a use rating of insufficient information.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used is not satified the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Three of three water samples exceeded the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, these three exceedances occurred on a single day, and the data is not temporally independent. According to Section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy, "If the majority of samples were collected on a single day, the data shall not be used as the primary data set supporting the listing decision." Thus, these three water sample exceedances were not used as supporting data to list this pollutant on the section 303(d) list. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354292012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168200CyfluthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 17 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cyfluthrin from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside311702012Cyfluthrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Those three water sample exceedances were occurred on a single day, 10/24/2007, and the data is not temporally independent to be used in the assessment based on the section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy. So the LOE No. 46322 received a use rating of insufficient information.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used is not satified the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Three of three water samples exceeded the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, these three exceedances occurred on a single day, and the data is not temporally independent. According to Section 6.1.5.3 of the Listing Policy, "If the majority of samples were collected on a single day, the data shall not be used as the primary data set supporting the listing decision." Thus, these three water sample exceedances were not used as supporting data to list this pollutant on the section 303(d) list. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463222012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000015CyfluthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal33Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total. Seventeen sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.00005 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of cyfluthrin does not exceed 0.00005 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.0003 ug/L. Mixtures of cyfluthrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. Three exceedances were found in water samples collected on 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside322272012Cyhalothrin, Lambda Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Twenty water samples were collected, but results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.4. None of 17 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463442012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000023Cyhalothrin, LambdaWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, total. Twenty sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0005 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of lambda-cyhalothrin does not exceed 0.0005 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.001 ug/L. Mixtures of lambda-cyhalothrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside322272012Cyhalothrin, Lambda Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Twenty water samples were collected, but results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.4. None of 17 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354442012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168206Cyhalothrin, LambdaWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 17 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.44 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.44 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for lambda-cyhalothrin from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside322282012Cypermethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Twenty water samples were collected, but results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.4. None of 17 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168212CypermethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 17 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.3 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.3 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cypermethrin from Maund et al. (2002).1.Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside322282012Cypermethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Twenty water samples were collected, but results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.4. None of 17 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463672012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000031CypermethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total. Twenty sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0002 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of cypermethrin does not exceed 0.0002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.001 ug/L. Mixtures of cypermethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214852012DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. This line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. This sample exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 1 sediment sample exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   54312010State Reviewed DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal11One sediment sample was taken at 1 location in the sea. The sediment sample was collected on 12/10/1987. This sample exceeded the PEC Criteria (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effect Concentration (PEC) of 31.3 ug/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects(Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31A sample was collected from the south end of the Salton Sea.One sediment samples was collected on 12/10/87 .The exceedence was found in the sample collected on 12/10/1987. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside311712012Deltamethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC) for Deltamethrin and none of 17 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463382012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000039DeltamethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC) of 0.02 ug/L, which is the geometric mean of the LOEC and NOEC, as determined in a 280 day toxicity study with the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database)1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside311712012Deltamethrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC) for Deltamethrin and none of 17 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354762012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168218DeltamethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 17 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.79 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.79 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for deltamethrin from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside226582012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 4807 and 4954 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for this pollutant in salt water condition. Since, Basin Plan is not designated this water body as a saline water, this water body is assessed as a freshwater body. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the freshwater chronic value, and none of 14 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). None of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49542010State Reviewed DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved36 Thirty-six water quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 8 locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of Diazinon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in salt waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside226582012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 4807 and 4954 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for this pollutant in salt water condition. Since, Basin Plan is not designated this water body as a saline water, this water body is assessed as a freshwater body. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the freshwater chronic value, and none of 14 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). None of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   48072010State Reviewed DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved22 Twenty-two water samples were collected every few weeks from 8/28/1996 through 4/15/1997 at three locations in the Salton Sea (CDPR, 2007).1.Data for pesticides in water samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. Mar. 1993-Jun. 2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRRWQCB,2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fraction of Diazinon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in salt waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from three sites in Salton Sea near the mouth of the Alamo River. The sites were approximately 0.14, 0.14, and 0.25 mi. offshore.Twenty two water samples were collected. The samples were collected every few weeks from 8/28/1996 through 4/15/1997 at three sites in the Salton Sea near the Alamo River mouth.The samples were collected every few weeks from August through November 1996 and from February through April 1997 to coincide with the pesticide application periods in the Imperial Valley (autumn and late winter/early spring) (Crepeau et al, 2002).Investigators used USGS QA/QC in sample collection and analysis. Lab analysis was done by the USGS California District Organic Chemistry Laboratory in Sacramento, California (Crepeau, 2002).1.“Dissolved Pesticides in the Alamo River and the Salton Sea, California, 1996-97.” United States Geological Survey. Sacramento, CA. Open file report No. 02-232. http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/of/ofr02232/
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside226582012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 4807 and 4954 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for this pollutant in salt water condition. Since, Basin Plan is not designated this water body as a saline water, this water body is assessed as a freshwater body. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the freshwater chronic value, and none of 14 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). None of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54972010State Reviewed DiazinonCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal310Thirty-one fish fillet samples were taken at 3 locations in the sea. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value. (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 300 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Salton Sea locations: from the North end, the South end, and the West Side.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty-one fish fillet samples of tilapia, bairdiella, orangemouth corvina, redbelly tilapia, Mozambique tilapia, and sargo were collected. Nine tilapia fillet composites samples were collected in the years 1984-85, (2)1996, 1997, (2)1998, and (2)2000. Five bairdiella fillet composite samples were collected in 1980, 1985, (2)1989, and 2000. Ten orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1981, 1984-87, (2)1991, 1997, and 1999. Two orangemouth corvina single fish fillet samples were collected in the year (2)1991. Two redbelly tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1980. Two sargo fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, and 1991. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside226582012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 4807 and 4954 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for this pollutant in salt water condition. Since, Basin Plan is not designated this water body as a saline water, this water body is assessed as a freshwater body. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the freshwater chronic value, and none of 14 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). None of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355042012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168224DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for diazinon is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 11 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 11 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for diazinon from Ding et al. (2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside226582012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 4807 and 4954 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for this pollutant in salt water condition. Since, Basin Plan is not designated this water body as a saline water, this water body is assessed as a freshwater body. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the freshwater chronic value, and none of 14 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). None of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352152012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167733DiazinonWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Finlayson, 2004).1.Water quality for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and GameData for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, Salton Sea USGS9, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside223672012Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50922010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved280Twenty-eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside295412012Dibenzothiophene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Dibenzothiophene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300872010State Reviewed DibenzothiopheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal28 Twenty-eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations. The Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 sampling locations were sampled in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside295412012Dibenzothiophene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Dibenzothiophene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299152010State Reviewed DibenzothiopheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20 Twenty water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 10/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fraction of Dibenzothiophene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Twenty water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed in October of 2002 from all eight sampling locations. Additional samples were collect from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations in April and November of 2003, and May of 2004. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214182012Dichlorobromomethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 29 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50932010State Reviewed DichlorobromomethaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved290Twenty-nine water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at six locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 46 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS9.Twenty-nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213212012Dichloromethane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 5098 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 4 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50982010State Reviewed Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | Vinyl chlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved40Four water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually in 5/2002 at four locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents:4000 ug/l Methyl Bromide, 16000 ug/l Dichloromethane, and 525 ug/l Vinyl Chloride (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS9.Four water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216042012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5597 and 46287 are also combined for a use rating determination. One fish tissue sample and one water sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of one water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and one of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51092010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal360Thirty-six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216042012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5597 and 46287 are also combined for a use rating determination. One fish tissue sample and one water sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of one water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and one of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54282010State Reviewed DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal11Thirty-one fish fillet samples were taken at 3 locations in the sea. Thirty fish fillet samples could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentrations. The 1 fish fillet samples that was acceptable was collected on 5/30/1991. Of these total samples, 1 fish fillet sample collected at one location exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. At the Salton Sea North location an exceedance was found in 1 sargo fillet composite sample collected on 5/30/1991 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 0.46 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 20008).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 2.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the following Salton Sea locations: from the North end, the South end and the West Side.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty-one fish fillet samples of tilapia, bairdiella, orangemouth corvina, redbelly tilapia, Mozambique tilapia, and sargo were collected. Nine tilapia fillet composites samples were collected in the years 1984-85, (2)1996, 1997, (2)1998, and (2)2000. Five bairdiella fillet composite samples were collected in 1980, 1985, (2)1989, and 2000. Ten orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1981, 1984-87, (2)1991, 1997, and 1999. Two orangemouth corvina single fish fillet samples were collected in the year (2)1991. Two redbelly tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1980. Two sargo fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, and 1991. The exceedance was found in a sample collected on 5/30/1991. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216042012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5597 and 46287 are also combined for a use rating determination. One fish tissue sample and one water sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of one water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and one of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55152010State Reviewed DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10One sediment sample was taken at 1 location in the sea. The sediment sample was collected on 12/10/1987. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Chemical monitoring of sedimentsBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effect Concentration (PEC) of 61.8 ug/g for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects(Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31A sample was collected from the south end of the Salton Sea.One sediment samples was collected on 12/10/87 . The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216042012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5597 and 46287 are also combined for a use rating determination. One fish tissue sample and one water sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of one water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and one of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55972010State Reviewed DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal310Thirty-one fish fillet samples were taken at 3 locations in the sea. The fish samples were generally collected rom 5/1980 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Salton Sea from the North end, the South end, and the West Side.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty-one fish fillet samples of tilapia, bairdiella, orangemouth corvina, redbelly tilapia, Mozambique tilapia, and sargo were collected. Nine tilapia fillet composites samples were collected in the years 1984-85, (2)1996, 1997, (2)1998, and (2)2000. Five bairdiella fillet composite samples were collected in 1980, 1985, (2)1989, and 2000. Ten orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1981, 1984-87, (2)1991, 1997, and 1999. Two orangemouth corvina single fish fillet samples were collected in the year (2)1991. Two redbelly tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1980. Two sargo fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, and 1991. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216042012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5597 and 46287 are also combined for a use rating determination. One fish tissue sample and one water sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of one water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and one of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   352842012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167752DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twenty samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Dieldrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00014 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216042012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5597 and 46287 are also combined for a use rating determination. One fish tissue sample and one water sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of one water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and one of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50832010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216042012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5597 and 46287 are also combined for a use rating determination. One fish tissue sample and one water sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of one water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and one of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353482012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167770DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for dieldrin is 61.8 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, Salton Sea USGS9, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216042012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5597 and 46287 are also combined for a use rating determination. One fish tissue sample and one water sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of one water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and one of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462862012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671711DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: Tilapia leucosticta. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Salton Sea - 728PSS171]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216042012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5597 and 46287 are also combined for a use rating determination. One fish tissue sample and one water sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of one water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and one of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462872012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671712DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: Tilapia leucosticta. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Salton Sea - 728PSS171]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216042012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5597 and 46287 are also combined for a use rating determination. One fish tissue sample and one water sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of one water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and one of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   48772010State Reviewed DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved11Thirty-six water samples were taken at eight locations on the sea. Thirty-five water sample results could not be used because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptible water quality sample, collected on 5/24/2004, was from one location in the Salton Sea (GS9). This sample exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.00014 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. The exceedence was found in a sample collected from 5/24/04. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216042012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5597 and 46287 are also combined for a use rating determination. One fish tissue sample and one water sample exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of one water samples exceeded the CTR criteria, and none of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. None of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline, and one of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353472012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167769DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Dieldrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, Salton Sea USGS9, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214152012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. None of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   330932012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 24192EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200None of the 20 samples exceeded the criteria.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe endosulfan criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.056 ug/L. This value corresponds to the sum of alpha-endosulfan and beta-endosulfan (USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006).1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology  Samples were collected at stations 728SSDNW2 (Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)), 728SSGS02 (Salton Sea USGS2), 728SSGS07 (Salton Sea USGS7), and 728SSGS09 (Salton Sea USGS9).Samples were collected on 10/26/2005, 5/3/2006, 5/9/2007, 10/24/2007, 4/22/2008, and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214152012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. None of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56042010State Reviewed EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal310Thirty-one fish fillet samples were taken at 3 locations in the sea. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Salton Sea from the North end, the South end, and the West Side.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty-one fish fillet samples of tilapia, bairdiella, orangemouth corvina, redbelly tilapia, Mozambique tilapia, and sargo were collected. Nine tilapia fillet composites samples were collected in the years 1984-85, (2)1996, 1997, (2)1998, and (2)2000. Five bairdiella fillet composite samples were collected in 1980, 1985, (2)1989, and 2000. Ten orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1981, 1984-87, (2)1991, 1997, and 1999. Two orangemouth corvina single fish fillet samples were collected in the year (2)1991. Two redbelly tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1980. Two sargo fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, and 1991. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214152012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. None of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal, These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54982010State Reviewed EndosulfanCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal310Thirty-one fish fillet samples were taken at 3 locations in the sea. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value. (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 20,000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Salton Sea locations: from the North end, the South end, and the West Side.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty-one fish fillet samples of tilapia, bairdiella, orangemouth corvina, redbelly tilapia, Mozambique tilapia, and sargo were collected. Nine tilapia fillet composites samples were collected in the years 1984-85, (2)1996, 1997, (2)1998, and (2)2000. Five bairdiella fillet composite samples were collected in 1980, 1985, (2)1989, and 2000. Ten orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1981, 1984-87, (2)1991, 1997, and 1999. Two orangemouth corvina single fish fillet samples were collected in the year (2)1991. Two redbelly tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1980. Two sargo fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, and 1991. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214142012Endosulfan sulfate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50882010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Pyrene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214142012Endosulfan sulfate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350542012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167821Endosulfan sulfateCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan sulfate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan Sulfate criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside293972012Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, and Endosulfan Sulfate consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300902010State Reviewed Endosulfan sulfate | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal28 Twenty-eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Endosulfan 1, Endosulfan 2, or Endosulfan Sulfate for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations. The Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 sampling locations were sampled in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214652012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5612 and 46391 are also combined for a use rating determination. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. None of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167830EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endrin criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214652012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5612 and 46391 are also combined for a use rating determination. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. None of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463912012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671716EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: Tilapia leucosticta. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Salton Sea - 728PSS171]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214652012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5612 and 46391 are also combined for a use rating determination. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. None of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463832012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671715EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: Tilapia leucosticta. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Salton Sea - 728PSS171]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214652012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5612 and 46391 are also combined for a use rating determination. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. None of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56122010State Reviewed EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal310Thirty-one fish fillet samples were taken at 3 locations in the sea. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Salton Sea locations: from the North end, the South end, and the West Side.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty-one fish fillet samples of tilapia, bairdiella, orangemouth corvina, redbelly tilapia, Mozambique tilapia, and sargo were collected. Nine tilapia fillet composites samples were collected in the years 1984-85, (2)1996, 1997, (2)1998, and (2)2000. Five bairdiella fillet composite samples were collected in 1980, 1985, (2)1989, and 2000. Ten orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1981, 1984-87, (2)1991, 1997, and 1999. Two orangemouth corvina single fish fillet samples were collected in the year (2)1991. Two redbelly tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1980. Two sargo fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, and 1991. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214652012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5612 and 46391 are also combined for a use rating determination. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. None of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350792012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167848EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for sum of endrin is 207 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, Salton Sea USGS9, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214652012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5612 and 46391 are also combined for a use rating determination. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. None of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350782012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167847EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endrin criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.036 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, Salton Sea USGS9, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214652012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5612 and 46391 are also combined for a use rating determination. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. None of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50832010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214652012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5612 and 46391 are also combined for a use rating determination. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. None of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50882010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Pyrene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214652012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5612 and 46391 are also combined for a use rating determination. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. None of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51092010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal360Thirty-six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214652012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5612 and 46391 are also combined for a use rating determination. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. None of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54992010State Reviewed EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal310Thirty-one fish fillet samples were taken at 3 locations in the sea. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value. (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 1000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Salton Sea locations: from the North end, the South end, and the West Side.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty-one fish fillet samples of tilapia, bairdiella, orangemouth corvina, redbelly tilapia, Mozambique tilapia, and sargo were collected. Nine tilapia fillet composites samples were collected in the years 1984-85, (2)1996, 1997, (2)1998, and (2)2000. Five bairdiella fillet composite samples were collected in 1980, 1985, (2)1989, and 2000. Ten orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1981, 1984-87, (2)1991, 1997, and 1999. Two orangemouth corvina single fish fillet samples were collected in the year (2)1991. Two redbelly tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1980. Two sargo fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, and 1991. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214652012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eleven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 5612 and 46391 are also combined for a use rating determination. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline. None of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55162010State Reviewed EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10One sediment sample was taken at 1 location in the sea. The sediment sample was collected on 12/10/1987. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Chemical monitoring of sedimentsBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effect Concentration (PEC) of 207 ug/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects(Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31A sample was collected from the south end of the Salton Sea.One sediment samples was collected on 12/10/87 . The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside212902012Endrin aldehyde Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350982012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167855Endrin aldehydeCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin Aldehyde.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endrin Aldehyde criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.81ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside212902012Endrin aldehyde Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50882010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Pyrene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213712012Escherichia coli (E. coli) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 5114 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient total sample size required by the Listing Policy, a minimum of 26 samples. LOE Nos. 33271 and 5111 are combined for a use rating determinatin. Four of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Four of 28 water samples exceeded Basin Plan E. coli water quaity objectives and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   332712012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23290Escherichia coli (E. coli)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterNone44Two of the four samples collected exceeded the E. coli objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008Not SpecifiedThe E. coli concentration shall not exceed more than 400/100ml. Basin Plan for the Colorado River Basin.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  The samples were collected from Salton Sea Drain NW (Torrez Martinez 2), Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, and Salton Sea USGS9.The samples were collected in October 2005. SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213712012Escherichia coli (E. coli) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 5114 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient total sample size required by the Listing Policy, a minimum of 26 samples. LOE Nos. 33271 and 5111 are combined for a use rating determinatin. Four of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Four of 28 water samples exceeded Basin Plan E. coli water quaity objectives and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51142010State Reviewed Escherichia coli (E. coli)Non-Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal240Twenty-four water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at six locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In waters designated for noncontact water recreation (REC II) the maximum allowable E. coli density is 2000 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 10/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213712012Escherichia coli (E. coli) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The use rating of LOE No. 5114 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient total sample size required by the Listing Policy, a minimum of 26 samples. LOE Nos. 33271 and 5111 are combined for a use rating determinatin. Four of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Four of 28 water samples exceeded Basin Plan E. coli water quaity objectives and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51112010State Reviewed Escherichia coli (E. coli)Water Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal240Twenty-four water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at six locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan:In waters designated for water contact recreation (REC I) the maximum allowable E. coli density is 400 MPN/ 100 ml (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 10/2004 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside322292012Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, median lethal concentration (LC50) and none of 17 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354342012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168230Esfenvalerate/FenvalerateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 17 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.5 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.5 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside322292012Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, median lethal concentration (LC50) and none of 17 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000047Esfenvalerate/FenvalerateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.13 ug/L, as determined in a 96 hour toxicity test using the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database)1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213722012Ethion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   55002010State Reviewed EthionCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal310Thirty-one fish fillet samples were taken at 3 locations in the sea. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value. (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 2000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Salton Sea locations: from the North end, the South end, and the West Side.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty-one fish fillet samples of tilapia, bairdiella, orangemouth corvina, redbelly tilapia, Mozambique tilapia, and sargo were collected. Nine tilapia fillet composites samples were collected in the years 1984-85, (2)1996, 1997, (2)1998, and (2)2000. Five bairdiella fillet composite samples were collected in 1980, 1985, (2)1989, and 2000. Ten orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1981, 1984-87, (2)1991, 1997, and 1999. Two orangemouth corvina single fish fillet samples were collected in the year (2)1991. Two redbelly tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1980. Two sargo fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, and 1991. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214772012Ethylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50912010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Ethylbenzene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | m-DichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved290Twenty-nine water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at six locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS9.Twenty-nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214772012Ethylbenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351182012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167862EthylbenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Ethylbenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Ethylbenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 29,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside311722012Fenpropathrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of Nine water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the median lethal concentration (LC50), and none of six sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354492012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168235FenpropathrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal60Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for fenpropathrin from Ding et al. ( 2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2007-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside311722012Fenpropathrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of Nine water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the median lethal concentration (LC50), and none of six sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464512012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000055FenpropathrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal90Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 9 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin, 2.2 ug/L, is the median lethal concentration (LC50) as determined in a 96 hour toxicity test using the bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database)1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 3 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09]Data was collected over the time period 10/24/2007-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214782012Fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 50 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51092010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal360Thirty-six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214782012Fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 50 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50882010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Pyrene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214782012Fluoranthene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 50 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355102012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168254FluorantheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Fluoranthene (sum of Fluoranthene and Fluoranthene/Pyrenes, C1-).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for fluoranthene is 2230 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216032012Fluorene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 50 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   325612012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21864FluoreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Zero of 14 samples collected for Fluorene (Sum of c0-c3) exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for fluorene in freshwater sediments is 536 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following stations: Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2, Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, .The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216032012Fluorene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 50 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50882010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Pyrene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216032012Fluorene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 50 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51092010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal360Thirty-six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216672012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 46401 and 5622 are combined for a use rating determination, and received fully supporting. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria maximum concentration. One of 20 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria continuous concentration for protection of aquatic life. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464012012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671719HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: Tilapia leucosticta. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Salton Sea - 728PSS171]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216672012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 46401 and 5622 are combined for a use rating determination, and received fully supporting. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria maximum concentration. One of 20 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria continuous concentration for protection of aquatic life. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50832010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216672012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 46401 and 5622 are combined for a use rating determination, and received fully supporting. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria maximum concentration. One of 20 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria continuous concentration for protection of aquatic life. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56222010State Reviewed HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal310Thirty-one fish fillet samples were taken at 3 locations in the sea. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Salton Sea locations: from the North end, the South end and the West Side.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty-one fish fillet samples of tilapia, bairdiella, orangemouth corvina, redbelly tilapia, Mozambique tilapia, and sargo were collected. Nine tilapia fillet composites samples were collected in the years 1984-85, (2)1996, 1997, (2)1998, and (2)2000. Five bairdiella fillet composite samples were collected in 1980, 1985, (2)1989, and 2000. Ten orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1981, 1984-87, (2)1991, 1997, and 1999. Two orangemouth corvina single fish fillet samples were collected in the year (2)1991. Two redbelly tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1980. Two sargo fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, and 1991. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216672012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 46401 and 5622 are combined for a use rating determination, and received fully supporting. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria maximum concentration. One of 20 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria continuous concentration for protection of aquatic life. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351122012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167925HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal201Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, Salton Sea USGS9, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216672012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 46401 and 5622 are combined for a use rating determination, and received fully supporting. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria maximum concentration. One of 20 water sample exceeded the CTR criteria continuous concentration for protection of aquatic life. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351622012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167914HeptachlorCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal11Twenty samples total were collected. One sample was detected at a level above the evaluation guideline resulting in 1 exceedance. Nineteen samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00021 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216682012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 46409 and 5630 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55012010State Reviewed Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal60Thirty-one fish fillet samples were taken at 3 locations in the sea. Twenty-five fish fillet samples could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentrations. The 6 fish fillet samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 11/1998 through 11/2000 collected at two locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 4 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Salton Sea locations: from the North end, the South end, and the West Side.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty-one fish fillet samples of tilapia, bairdiella, orangemouth corvina, redbelly tilapia, Mozambique tilapia, and sargo were collected. Nine tilapia fillet composites samples were collected in the years 1984-85, (2)1996, 1997, (2)1998, and (2)2000. Five bairdiella fillet composite samples were collected in 1980, 1985, (2)1989, and 2000. Ten orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1981, 1984-87, (2)1991, 1997, and 1999. Two orangemouth corvina single fish fillet samples were collected in the year (2)1991. Two redbelly tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1980. Two sargo fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, and 1991. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216682012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 46409 and 5630 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56302010State Reviewed Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal310Thirty-one fish fillet samples were taken at 3 locations in the sea. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Salton Sea from the North end, the South end and the West Side.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty-one fish fillet samples of tilapia, bairdiella, orangemouth corvina, redbelly tilapia, Mozambique tilapia, and sargo were collected. Nine tilapia fillet composites samples were collected in the years 1984-85, (2)1996, 1997, (2)1998, and (2)2000. Five bairdiella fillet composite samples were collected in 1980, 1985, (2)1989, and 2000. Ten orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1981, 1984-87, (2)1991, 1997, and 1999. Two orangemouth corvina single fish fillet samples were collected in the year (2)1991. Two redbelly tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1980. Two sargo fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, and 1991. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216682012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 46409 and 5630 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351302012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167932Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twenty samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor Epoxide criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00011 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216682012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 46409 and 5630 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351642012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167943Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Heptachlor Epoxide criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.0038 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, Salton Sea USGS9, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216682012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 46409 and 5630 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464082012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671720Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: Tilapia leucosticta. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in fish tissue is 0.93 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking WaterData for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Salton Sea - 728PSS171]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216682012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 46409 and 5630 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464092012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671721Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: Tilapia leucosticta. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Salton Sea - 728PSS171]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside216682012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 46409 and 5630 are combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50832010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside295332012Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Heptachlor, and Heptachlor Epoxide consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300912010State Reviewed Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal28 Twenty-eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Heptachlor, or Heptachlor Epoxide for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations. The Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 sampling locations were sampled in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213732012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline, and one of one water sample exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355222012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167950Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal11Twenty samples total were collected. One sample was detected at a level above the evaluation guideline resulting in 1 exceedance. Nineteen samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Hexachlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.00077 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213732012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline, and one of one water sample exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55022010State Reviewed Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal310Thirty-one fish fillet samples were taken at 3 locations in the sea. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value. (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 20 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Salton Sea locations: from the North end, the South end, and the West Side.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty-one fish fillet samples of tilapia, bairdiella, orangemouth corvina, redbelly tilapia, Mozambique tilapia, and sargo were collected. Nine tilapia fillet composites samples were collected in the years 1984-85, (2)1996, 1997, (2)1998, and (2)2000. Five bairdiella fillet composite samples were collected in 1980, 1985, (2)1989, and 2000. Ten orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1981, 1984-87, (2)1991, 1997, and 1999. Two orangemouth corvina single fish fillet samples were collected in the year (2)1991. Two redbelly tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1980. Two sargo fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, and 1991. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213732012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline, and one of one water sample exceeded the CTR criteria. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464162012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671722Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobenzene. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: Tilapia leucosticta. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue is 2.8 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Salton Sea - 728PSS171]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside295352012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Methoxychlor | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, and Methoxychlor consistent with Listing Policy section 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300942010State Reviewed Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB | Methoxychlor | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal28 Twenty-eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, Hexachlorobenzene, or Methoxychlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations. The Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 sampling locations were sampled in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214882012Hexachlorobutadiene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50912010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Ethylbenzene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | m-DichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved290Twenty-nine water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at six locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS9.Twenty-nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214882012Hexachlorobutadiene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355482012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167959HexachlorobutadieneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobutadiene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Hexachlorobutadiene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 50 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213542012Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (mixture) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   67312010State Reviewed Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (mixture)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal310Thirty-one fish fillet samples were taken at 3 locations in the sea. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Salton Sea from the North end, the South end and the West Side.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty-one fish fillet samples of tilapia, bairdiella, orangemouth corvina, redbelly tilapia, Mozambique tilapia, and sargo were collected. Nine tilapia fillet composites samples were collected in the years 1984-85, (2)1996, 1997, (2)1998, and (2)2000. Five bairdiella fillet composite samples were collected in 1980, 1985, (2)1989, and 2000. Ten orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1981, 1984-87, (2)1991, 1997, and 1999. Two orangemouth corvina single fish fillet samples were collected in the year (2)1991. Two redbelly tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1980. Two sargo fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, and 1991. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside293842012Hydroxide | Pheophytin a Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.7.1 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess Hydroxide, or Pheophytin a consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.7.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Hydroxide, or Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Hydroxide, or Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299222010State Reviewed Hydroxide | Pheophytin aWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved8 Eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed in 5/2002 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for Hydroxide, or Pheophytin a for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Eight water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed in May of 2002 from all eight sampling locations. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside224892012Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 28 water samples exceeded the Caifornia Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50922010State Reviewed Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene -7-d) | Benzo[b]fluoranthene | Benzo[k]fluoranthene | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Dibenz[a,h]anthracene | Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyreneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved280Twenty-eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Anthracene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[a]Pyrene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[b]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Benzo[k]Fluoranthene, 0.049 ug/l Chrysene, 0.049 ug/l Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, and 0.049 ug/l Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213532012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 66 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   61162010State Reviewed LeadWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal130Thirteen sediment quality samples were taken at 10 locations in the Salton Sea, collected between 7/1998 and 10/2001. Out of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 128 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following Salton Sea locations: USGS Station No. 333006116031501 near the mouth of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel, USGS Station No. 332958116023501 in the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel Delta, USGS Station No. 332908116011501 between North Basin and Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel, USGS Station No. 332637115512001 in Salt Creek Delta, USGS Station No. 331400115450001 near center of South Basin, USGS Station No. 331215115410001 between South Basin and New and Alamo River Deltas, USGS Station No. 330835115434501 in New River Delta, USGS Station No. 331023115473701 in San Felipe Creek Delta, USGS Station No. 330803115414001 near the mouth of New River, and USGS Station No. 331242115371401 near the mouth of Alamo River.Thirteen samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 7/1998 through 10/2001. Seven samples were in 1998, 1 sample was collected in 1999, no samples were collected in 2000, and 5 samples were collected in 2001. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213532012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 66 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355872012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167968LeadWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 17 samples exceed the criterion for Lead.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for lead is 128 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, Salton Sea USGS9, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213532012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 66 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51092010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal360Thirty-six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213532012Lead Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 66 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50782010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside215092012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46400 and 6739 are also combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences. None of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463922012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671717Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: Tilapia leucosticta. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in fish tissue is 4.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Salton Sea - 728PSS171]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside215092012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46400 and 6739 are also combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences. None of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55172010State Reviewed Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10One sediment sample was taken at 1 location in the sea. The sediment sample was collected on 12/10/1987. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Chemical monitoring of sedimentsBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effect Concentration (PEC) of 4.99 ug/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects(Macdonald et al, 2000)1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31A sample was collected from the south end of the Salton Sea.One sediment samples was collected on 12/10/87 . The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside215092012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46400 and 6739 are also combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences. None of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55032010State Reviewed Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal310Thirty-one fish fillet samples were taken at 3 locations in the sea. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value. (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 30 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Salton Sea locations: from the North end, the South end, and the West Side.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty-one fish fillet samples of tilapia, bairdiella, orangemouth corvina, redbelly tilapia, Mozambique tilapia, and sargo were collected. Nine tilapia fillet composites samples were collected in the years 1984-85, (2)1996, 1997, (2)1998, and (2)2000. Five bairdiella fillet composite samples were collected in 1980, 1985, (2)1989, and 2000. Ten orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1981, 1984-87, (2)1991, 1997, and 1999. Two orangemouth corvina single fish fillet samples were collected in the year (2)1991. Two redbelly tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1980. Two sargo fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, and 1991. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside215092012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46400 and 6739 are also combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences. None of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51092010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal360Thirty-six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside215092012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46400 and 6739 are also combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences. None of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350902012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167889Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe HCH, Gamma (Lindane) criterion for the protection of human health from the consumption of organisms is 0.063 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside215092012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46400 and 6739 are also combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences. None of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351422012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167906Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe gamma-BHC (Lindane) criterion maximum concentration to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.95 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, Salton Sea USGS9, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside215092012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46400 and 6739 are also combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences. None of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464002012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671718Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: Tilapia leucosticta. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Salton Sea - 728PSS171]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside215092012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46400 and 6739 are also combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences. None of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   67392010State Reviewed Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal310Thirty-one fish fillet samples were taken at 3 locations in the sea. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the following Salton Sea locations: from the North end, the South end, and the West Side.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty-one fish fillet samples of tilapia, bairdiella, orangemouth corvina, redbelly tilapia, Mozambique tilapia, and sargo were collected. Nine tilapia fillet composites samples were collected in the years 1984-85, (2)1996, 1997, (2)1998, and (2)2000. Five bairdiella fillet composite samples were collected in 1980, 1985, (2)1989, and 2000. Ten orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1981, 1984-87, (2)1991, 1997, and 1999. Two orangemouth corvina single fish fillet samples were collected in the year (2)1991. Two redbelly tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1980. Two sargo fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, and 1991. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside215092012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. LOE Nos. 46400 and 6739 are also combined for a use rating determination. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences. None of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351432012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167907Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Lindane (gamma-HCH) is 4.99 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, Salton Sea USGS9, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213552012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 31110, 46417 and 5564 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 54 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule Criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 15 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 53 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50802010State Reviewed MercuryWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved340Thirty-four water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NRWQC Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) of 1.4 ug/l for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2002).1.National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213552012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 31110, 46417 and 5564 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 54 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule Criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 15 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 53 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356782012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167996MercuryWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 17 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for mercury is 1.06 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, Salton Sea USGS9, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213552012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 31110, 46417 and 5564 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 54 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule Criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 15 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 53 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464172012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671723MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet40Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. Four composites (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: Tilapia leucosticta. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish (150 - 500 mm; fillet wet weight) is 0.20 mg/kg.1.Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Salton Sea - 728PSS171]. Samples were collected from 4 locations. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213552012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 31110, 46417 and 5564 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 54 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule Criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 15 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 53 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50872010State Reviewed MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved340Thirty-four water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria 0.051 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213552012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 31110, 46417 and 5564 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 54 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule Criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 15 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 53 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51092010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal360Thirty-six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213552012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 31110, 46417 and 5564 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 54 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule Criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 15 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 53 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55642010State Reviewed MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal110Thirty-five fish fillet samples were taken at 3 locations in the sea. Twenty-four fish fillet sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample were not analyzed for the analyte. The 11 fish fillet samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 8/1985 through 11/2000 at two locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 0.3 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Salton Sea locations: from the North end, the South end, and the West Side.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 6/1984 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty five fish fillet samples of bairdiella, orangemouth corvina, redbelly tilapia, tilapia, and sargo were collected.Five bairdiella fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, 1987, (2)1989, and 2000. Ten orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1984-87, (4)1991, 1997, and 1999. Six orangemouth corvine single fish fillet samples were collected in the year (6)1986. Two redbelly tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in year (2)1995. Nine tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985,1987, (2)1996, 1997, (2)1998, and (2)2000. Three sargo fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, 1987, and 1991. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213552012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 31110, 46417 and 5564 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 54 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule Criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 15 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 53 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   311102010State Reviewed MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet40Fish were collected for tissue analysis at four locations from the Salton Sea. A total of 4 sample composites were generated from one species: Tilapia. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). A total of 0 out of 4 samples exceeded the OHHEA fish tissue screening value for human health.1.Data associated with report entitled: Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 3.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 0.3 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from four locations in the Salton Sea. As discussed in the Lakes and Reservoirs Report (SWAMP, 2009), individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody with an approximate one-mile diameter, from which multiple fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody. Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Samples were collected on 10/30/07There are no known environmental conditions (e.g., seasonality, land use practices, fire events, storms, etc.) that are related to these data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in "Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2008).1.Quality Assurance Project Plan Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs. Moss Landing Marine Labs. Prepared for SWAMP BOG, 49 pages plus appendices and attachments
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213552012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5, and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 31110, 46417 and 5564 received a use rating of insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 54 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule Criteria protecting human health when consuming organisms from this water. None of 15 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 53 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356532012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167986MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Mercury criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.051 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside322202012Methoxychlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355502012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168010MethoxychlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Methoxychlor.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The criterion continuous concentration for Methoxychlor is 0.3 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside311732012Methyl Parathion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria, and none of 14 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355992012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168074Methyl ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria for Methyl Parathion is 0.08 ug/L.1.Hazard Assessment of the Insecticide Methyl to Aquatic Organisms in the Sacramento River SystemData for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, Salton Sea USGS9, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside311732012Methyl Parathion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game instantaneous criteria, and none of 14 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50). These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354662012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168242Methyl ParathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for methyl parathion is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 6 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 6 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for methyl parathion from Ding et al. (2011).1.Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83–92.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213222012Methyl bromide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 5098 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 4 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50982010State Reviewed Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | Vinyl chlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved40Four water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually in 5/2002 at four locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents:4000 ug/l Methyl Bromide, 16000 ug/l Dichloromethane, and 525 ug/l Vinyl Chloride (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS9.Four water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside311742012Mirex Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One fish sample and twenty water samples were collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Because of non- acceptable samples, staff cannot make decision for this pollutant if water quality standard is met.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464252012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671724MirexCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Mirex. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: Tilapia leucosticta. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in fish tissue is 0.28 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Salton Sea - 728PSS171]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside311742012Mirex Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One fish sample and twenty water samples were collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Because of non- acceptable samples, staff cannot make decision for this pollutant if water quality standard is met.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355942012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168024MirexWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Twenty samples were collected but were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The criterion continuous concentration for Mirex is 0.001 ug/l from the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and TechnologyData for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, Salton Sea USGS9, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside322212012Molinate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356372012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168034MolinateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Molinate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Molinate is 0.6 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213672012Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 50 sediment samples exceeded the sediment qualty guidelines and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51092010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal360Thirty-six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213672012Naphthalene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 50 sediment samples exceeded the sediment qualty guidelines and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328072012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21870NaphthaleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Zero of 14 samples collected for naphthalene (Sum of c0-c4) exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for naphthalene in freshwater sediments is 561 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following stations: Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2, Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, .The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside226132012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 67 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356802012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168043NickelCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Nickel criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 4,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside226132012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 67 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50782010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside226132012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 67 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50862010State Reviewed NickelCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria 4600 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside226132012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 67 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51092010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal360Thirty-six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside226132012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 67 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52452010State Reviewed NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were taken at 11 locations in the Salton Sea, generally collected from 7/1998 through 10/2001. Of these total samples , none exceeded the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 48.6 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following Salton Sea locations: USGS Station No. 333006116031501 near the mouth of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel, USGS Station No. 332958116023501 in the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel Delta, USGS Station No. 332908116011501 between North Basin and Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel, USGS Station No. 332637115512001 in Salt Creek Delta, USGS Station No. 331400115380001 in Alamo River Delta, USGS Station No. 331400115450001 near center of South Basin, USGS Station No. 331215115410001 between South Basin and New and Alamo River Deltas, USGS Station No. 330835115434501 in New River Delta, USGS Station No. 331023115473701 in San Felipe Creek Delta, USGS Station No. 330803115414001 near the mouth of New River, and USGS Station No. 331242115371401 near the mouth of Alamo River.Fourteen samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 7/1998 through 10/2001. Seven samples were collected in 1998, 1 samples was collected in 1999, no samples were collected in 2000, and 6 samples were collected in 2001. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside226132012Nickel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 67 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353652012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168052NickelWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 17 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for nickel is 48.6 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, Salton Sea USGS9, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside296432012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 29907 and 30084 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Phorate and Phosmet are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Phorate. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356672012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168092PhosmetWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Phosmet.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet is 5.6 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside296432012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 29907 and 30084 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Phorate and Phosmet are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Phorate. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   299072010State Reviewed Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | TrichloronateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved28 Twenty-eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, Phorate, Phosmet, Phosphamidon, Sulfotep, Tedion, Thionazin, Trichloronate, or Trichlorfon for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The locations Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 were sampled in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside296432012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 29907 and 30084 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Phorate and Phosmet are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Phorate. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   300842010State Reviewed Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | TedionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal28 Twenty-eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Oxychlordane, Perylene, or Tedion for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations. The Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 sampling locations were sampled in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside296432012Oxychlordane | Perylene (Dibenz(de,kl)anthracene) | Phorate | Phosmet | Phosphamidon | Sulfotep | Tedion | Thionazin | Trichlorfon | Trichloronate Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE Nos. 29907 and 30084 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, evaluation guidelines for Phorate and Phosmet are available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Phorate. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Phosmet. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356412012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168084PhorateWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Phorate.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life LC50 for Phorate is 2 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside311752012PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of 14 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354552012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168276PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Total PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for fluoranthene is 2230 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside226142012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, which creates total of 51 sediment samples and received fully supporting. LOE Nos. 5642 and 46433 are also combined for a use rating determination, which results in total of 32 fish samples and received fully supporting for both of LOEs. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. None of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329982012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23835PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Zero of 14 samples collected for Total PCBs exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total PCB is 676 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following stations 728SSDNW2 (Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)), 728SSGS02 (Salton Sea USGS2), 728SSGS07 (Salton Sea USGS7), and 728SSGS09 (Salton Sea USGS9).The samples were collected on 10/26/2005, 5/3/2006, 10/24/2007 and 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside226142012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, which creates total of 51 sediment samples and received fully supporting. LOE Nos. 5642 and 46433 are also combined for a use rating determination, which results in total of 32 fish samples and received fully supporting for both of LOEs. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. None of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464262012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671725PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: Tilapia leucosticta. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for polychlorinated biphenyls in fish tissue is 2.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Salton Sea - 728PSS171]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside226142012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, which creates total of 51 sediment samples and received fully supporting. LOE Nos. 5642 and 46433 are also combined for a use rating determination, which results in total of 32 fish samples and received fully supporting for both of LOEs. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. None of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   329962012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 23448PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal60None of the 6 samples exceeded the criterion continuous concentration for total PCB. The water body was assessed for the 3 aroclors that were contained within the data set and they include aroclor 1248, aroclor 1254, and aroclor 1260.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe total PCB criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.014 ug/L. This value corresponds to the sum of aroclors 1242, 1254, 1221, 1232, 1248, 1260, and 1016 (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Samples collected at stations 728SSGS02 (Salton Sea USGS2), 728SSGS07 (Salton Sea USGS7), and 728SSGS09 (Salton Sea USGS9).Samples collected between 4/22/2008 and 10/29/2008.Freshwater criteria is more protective than Saltwater criteria and was utilized to assess this water body.SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside226142012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, which creates total of 51 sediment samples and received fully supporting. LOE Nos. 5642 and 46433 are also combined for a use rating determination, which results in total of 32 fish samples and received fully supporting for both of LOEs. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. None of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464332012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671726PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: Tilapia leucosticta. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total PCB concentration of 500 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Salton Sea - 728PSS171]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside226142012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, which creates total of 51 sediment samples and received fully supporting. LOE Nos. 5642 and 46433 are also combined for a use rating determination, which results in total of 32 fish samples and received fully supporting for both of LOEs. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. None of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56422010State Reviewed PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal310Thirty-one fish fillet samples were taken at 3 locations in the sea. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 500 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Salton Sea from the North end, the South end, and the West Side.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty-one fish fillet samples of tilapia, bairdiella, orangemouth corvina, redbelly tilapia, Mozambique tilapia, and sargo were collected. Nine tilapia fillet composites samples were collected in the years 1984-85, (2)1996, 1997, (2)1998, and (2)2000. Five bairdiella fillet composite samples were collected in 1980, 1985, (2)1989, and 2000. Ten orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1981, 1984-87, (2)1991, 1997, and 1999. Two orangemouth corvina single fish fillet samples were collected in the year (2)1991. Two redbelly tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1980. Two sargo fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, and 1991. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside226142012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, which creates total of 51 sediment samples and received fully supporting. LOE Nos. 5642 and 46433 are also combined for a use rating determination, which results in total of 32 fish samples and received fully supporting for both of LOEs. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. None of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51092010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal360Thirty-six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside226142012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, which creates total of 51 sediment samples and received fully supporting. LOE Nos. 5642 and 46433 are also combined for a use rating determination, which results in total of 32 fish samples and received fully supporting for both of LOEs. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of six water samples exceeded the CTR criteria. None of 32 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. None of 51 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55182010State Reviewed PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10One sediment sample was taken at 1 location in the sea. The sediment sample was collected on 12/10/1987. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effect Concentration (PEC) of 676 ug/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects(Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31A sample was collected from the south end of the Salton Sea.One sediment samples was collected on 12/10/87 . The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside311762012Permethrin, total Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Fourteen water sample results were collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.4. None of 17 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464592012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000063Permethrin, totalWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total. Fourteen sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.002 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of permethrin does not exceed 0.002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.01 ug/L. Mixtures of permethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside311762012Permethrin, total Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Fourteen water sample results were collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.4. None of 17 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354932012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168248Permethrin, totalWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 17 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 8.9 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for permethrin from Amweg et al. (2005).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213682012Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 50 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51092010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal360Thirty-six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213682012Phenanthrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 50 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328272012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21810PhenanthreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Zero of 14 samples collected for Phenanthrene (sum of c0-c4) exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for Phenanthrene in freshwater sediments is 1170 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following stations: Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2, Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, .The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 4/22/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside294032012Propazine | Terbuthylazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29912 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Propazine is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Propazine. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   299122010State Reviewed Propazine | TerbuthylazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved24 Twenty-four water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of Propazine, or Terbuthylazine for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-four water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. Samples were not collected in November of 2003. The locations Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 were sampled in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside294032012Propazine | Terbuthylazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThese pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. LOE No. 29912 received a use rating of insufficient information in last assessment cycle because no evaluation guidelines were available for these pollutants. However, an evaluation guideline for Propazine is available in current assessment cycle, and none of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Propazine. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   355842012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168116PropazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Propazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Propazine is 25 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213022012Pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, and received fully supporting for both of LOEs. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of 50 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50882010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Pyrene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213022012Pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, and received fully supporting for both of LOEs. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of 50 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   51092010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal360Thirty-six sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213022012Pyrene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, and received fully supporting for both of LOEs. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of 50 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354392012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168260PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 14 samples exceed the criterion for Pyrene (sum of Pyrene and Fluoranthene/Pyrenes, C1-).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for pyrene is 1520 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213202012Silver Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50792010State Reviewed SilverWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside322222012Simazine Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   356272012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168129SimazineWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Simazine.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life EC50 for Simazine is 90 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside295402012Streptococcus, fecal Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess fecal Streptococcus consistent with Listing Policy section 3.3. No evaluation guideline for the total density of fecal Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the total density of fecal Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299142010State Reviewed Streptococcus, fecalWater Contact Recreation Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal20 Twenty water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at six locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for Streptococcus for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Twenty water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed in May and October of 2002 from all six sampling locations. Additional samples were collect from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations in April and November of 2003. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213092012Tetrachloroethylene/PCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353762012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168145Tetrachloroethylene/PCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Tetrachloroethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Tetrachloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 8.85 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213092012Tetrachloroethylene/PCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50912010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Ethylbenzene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | m-DichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved290Twenty-nine water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at six locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS9.Twenty-nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside322192012Thiobencarb/Bolero Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353882012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168157Thiobencarb/BoleroWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Thiobencarb.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental phyusiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life. (Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006According to the USEPA Office of Pesticide Programs Ecotoxicity database, the aquatic life MATC for Thiobencarb is 1.4 ug/L.1.OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database.Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213102012Toluene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50912010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Ethylbenzene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | m-DichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved290Twenty-nine water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at six locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS9.Twenty-nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213102012Toluene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine a final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   353952012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168164TolueneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Toluene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Toluene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 200,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside301372012Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel is used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299132010State Reviewed Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as DieselWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved20 Twenty water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel, used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics (dro), for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Twenty water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 11/203 from the Salton Sea GS2, and GS7 locations. Samples were collected and analyzed from Salton Sea NW2 and GS9 in September of 2002, and April and November of 2003. The sampling locations Salton Sea NW1, GS3, and GS10 were sampled in May and October of 2002. The sampling locations Salton Sea GS3 and GS5 were sampled once in May of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside301372012Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel is used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300862010State Reviewed Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as DieselWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal23 Twenty-three sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 11/2003 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Diesel, used to refer to the dissolved fractions of Diesel Range Organics (dro), for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-three sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 11/2003 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations. The Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 sampling locations were sampled in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213302012Toxaphene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 5505 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   55052010State Reviewed ToxapheneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal60Thirty-one fish fillet samples were taken at 3 locations in the sea. Twenty-five fish fillet samples could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentrations. The 6 fish fillet samples that were acceptable were generally collected from 11/1998 through 11/2000 collected at two locations. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 30 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the following Salton Sea locations: from the North end, the South end, and the West Side.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty-one fish fillet samples of tilapia, bairdiella, orangemouth corvina, redbelly tilapia, Mozambique tilapia, and sargo were collected. Nine tilapia fillet composites samples were collected in the years 1984-85, (2)1996, 1997, (2)1998, and (2)2000. Five bairdiella fillet composite samples were collected in 1980, 1985, (2)1989, and 2000. Ten orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1981, 1984-87, (2)1991, 1997, and 1999. Two orangemouth corvina single fish fillet samples were collected in the year (2)1991. Two redbelly tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1980. Two sargo fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, and 1991. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213302012Toxaphene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 5505 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 6 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline. None of 31 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   56542010State Reviewed ToxapheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal310Thirty-one fish fillet samples were taken at 3 locations in the sea. The fish samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Of these total samples, none exceeded the NAS tissue guideline. (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the Salton Sea from the North end, the South end and the West Side.Fish tissue samples were generally collected from 5/1980 through 11/2000. Fish tissue samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. Thirty-one fish fillet samples of tilapia, bairdiella, orangemouth corvina, redbelly tilapia, Mozambique tilapia, and sargo were collected. Nine tilapia fillet composites samples were collected in the years 1984-85, (2)1996, 1997, (2)1998, and (2)2000. Five bairdiella fillet composite samples were collected in 1980, 1985, (2)1989, and 2000. Ten orangemouth corvina fillet composite samples were collected in the years (2)1981, 1984-87, (2)1991, 1997, and 1999. Two orangemouth corvina single fish fillet samples were collected in the year (2)1991. Two redbelly tilapia fillet composite samples were collected in the year (2)1995. One Mozambique tilapia fillet composite sample was collected in the year 1980. Two sargo fillet composite samples were collected in the years 1985, and 1991. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214712012Trichloroethylene/TCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354042012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168173Trichloroethylene/TCECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for Trichloroethylene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Trichloroethylene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 81 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214712012Trichloroethylene/TCE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50912010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Ethylbenzene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | m-DichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved290Twenty-nine water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at six locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS9.Twenty-nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213632012Vinyl chloride Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 5098 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 4 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   50982010State Reviewed Dichloromethane | Methyl bromide | Vinyl chlorideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved40Four water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually in 5/2002 at four locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents:4000 ug/l Methyl Bromide, 16000 ug/l Dichloromethane, and 525 ug/l Vinyl Chloride (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS9.Four water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed in 5/2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214722012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 66 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49702010State Reviewed ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal360Thirty-six sediment quality samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 8 locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) of 459 mg/kg for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005. Samples were usually collected in May and October. Samples were not collected from each site every sampling event. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214722012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 66 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   354152012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168186ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal170Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 17 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for zinc is 459 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, Salton Sea USGS9, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-4/22/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214722012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 66 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   52892010State Reviewed ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal130Thirteen sediment quality samples were taken at 10 locations in the Salton Sea, collected between 7/1998 and 10/2001. Out of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 459 mg/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following Salton Sea locations: USGS Station No. 333006116031501 near the mouth of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel, USGS Station No. 332958116023501 in the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel Delta, USGS Station No. 332908116011501 between North Basin and Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel, USGS Station No. 332637115512001 in Salt Creek Delta, USGS Station No. 331400115450001 near center of South Basin, USGS Station No. 331215115410001 between South Basin and New and Alamo River Deltas, USGS Station No. 330835115434501 in New River Delta, USGS Station No. 331023115473701 in San Felipe Creek Delta, USGS Station No. 330803115414001 near the mouth of New River, and USGS Station No. 331242115371401 near the mouth of Alamo River.Thirteen samples were collected. Samples were generally collected from 7/1998 through 10/2001. Seven samples were in 1998, 1 sample was collected in 1999, no samples were collected in 2000, and 5 samples were collected in 2001. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214722012Zinc Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria. None of 66 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50782010State Reviewed Cadmium | Lead | Nickel | ZincWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Hardness Dependent Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, and Zinc (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside294672012alpha-Chlordene | gama-Chlordene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess alpha-Chlordene, and gamma-Chlordene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300822010State Reviewed alpha-Chlordene | gama-ChlordeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal28 Twenty-eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations. The Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 sampling locations were sampled in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside294672012alpha-Chlordene | gama-Chlordene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess alpha-Chlordene, and gamma-Chlordene consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299012010State Reviewed alpha-Chlordene | gama-ChlordeneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved28 Twenty-eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of alpha-Chlordene, or gamma-Chlordene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The locations Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 were sampled in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214522012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50832010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214522012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463812012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671713alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: Tilapia leucosticta. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in fish tissue is 13,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Salton Sea - 728PSS171]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214522012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463822012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671714alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. One composite (20 fish per composite) was generated from one species: Tilapia leucosticta. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Endosulfan concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Salton Sea - 728PSS171]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/30/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214522012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50882010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Pyrene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214522012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350202012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167785alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan I criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214522012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria, and none of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal. These do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350302012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167796alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan I criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for alpha-endosulfan is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, Salton Sea USGS9, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214392012alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50882010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Pyrene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214392012alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351382012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167871Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), alphaCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, alpha.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe BHC, alpha criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.013 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214512012beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50882010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Pyrene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214512012beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   351712012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167880Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), betaCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, Beta.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe BHC, beta criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 0.046 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214132012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350472012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167814beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan II criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for beta-endosulfan is 0.056 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2, Salton Sea USGS7, Salton Sea USGS9, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214132012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50882010State Reviewed Acenaphthene | Anthracene | Endosulfan sulfate | Endrin | Endrin aldehyde | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Pyrene | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | alpha.-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or alpha-HCH) | beta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or beta-HCH) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 2700 ug/l Acenaphthene, 0.014 ug/l alpha-BHC, 240 ug/l alpha-Endosulfan, 110000 ug/l Anthracene, 0.046 ug/l beta-BHC, 240 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 240 ug/l Endosulfan Sulfate, 0.81 ug/l Endrin, 0.81 ug/l Endrin Aldehyde, 370 ug/l Fluoranthene, 14000 ug/l Fluorene, and 11000 ug/l Pyrene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214132012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50832010State Reviewed Aldrin | Chlordane | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Heptachlor | Heptachlor epoxide | alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) | beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved360Thirty-six water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at eight locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criterion Maximum Concentrations (CMCs) for the protection of freshwater aquatic life uses were used for the following constituents: 3 ug/l Aldrin, 0.22 ug/l alpha Endosulfan, 0.22 ug/l beta-Endosulfan, 2.4 ug/l Chlordane, 1.1 ug/l DDT, 0.24 ug/l Dieldrin, 0.086 ug/l Endrin, 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor, and 0.52 ug/l Heptachlor epoxide (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sa NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214132012beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 56 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   350372012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167803beta-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 2)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal200Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 20 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan II.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Endosulfan II criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 240 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-10/29/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside296172012cis-Nonachlor | trans-Nonachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess cis-Nonachlor, and trans-Nonachlor consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300782010State Reviewed cis-Nonachlor | trans-NonachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal28 Twenty-eight sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations. The Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 sampling locations were sampled in May and October of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside296172012cis-Nonachlor | trans-Nonachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess cis-Nonachlor, and trans-Nonachlor consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298972010State Reviewed cis-Nonachlor | trans-NonachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved28 Twenty-eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of cis-Nonachlor, or trans-Nonachlor for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The locations Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 were sampled in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside296382012delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess delta-BHC consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   300772010State Reviewed delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal20 Twenty sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).).).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the sediment fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Twenty sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations. No samples were collected from these locations in October of 2002. The Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 sampling locations were sampled in May of 2002 only. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside296382012delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under these sections a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess delta-BHC consistent with Listing Policy sections 3.1 and 3.6. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved or sediment fractions of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   298932010State Reviewed delta-BHC (Benzenehexachloride or delta-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved27 Twenty-seven water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of delta-BHC for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-seven water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The locations Salton Sea NW1, GS3, and GS5 were sampled in May and October of 2002. The location GS10 was only sampled once in September of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214212012m-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347542012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675331, 3 -dichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 3-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 2,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214212012m-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50912010State Reviewed 1,1,2-Trichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloroethane | 1,2-Dichloropropane | Bromoform | Chlorobenzene (mono) | Ethylbenzene | Hexachlorobutadiene | Tetrachloroethylene/PCE | Toluene | Trichloroethylene/TCE | m-DichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved290Twenty-nine water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at six locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems were used for the following constituents: 360 ug/l Bromoform, 21000 ug/l Chlorobenzene, 2600 ug/l m-Dichlorobenzene, 99 ug/l 1,2-Dichloroethane, 39 ug/l 1,2-Dichloropropane, 29000 ug/l Ethylbenzene, 50 ug/l Hexachlorobutadiene, 8.85 ug/l Tetrachloroethylene, 200000 ug/l Toluene, 42 ug/l 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, and 81 ug/l Trichloroethylene (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS9.Twenty-nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside296312012o,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)) | o,p'-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | o,p'-DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | p,p'-DDMU Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, and p,p'-DDMU consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meet the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299042010State Reviewed o,p'-DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)) | o,p'-DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | o,p'-DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | p,p'-DDMUWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved28 Twenty-eight water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2004 at eight locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guidelines for the dissolved fractions of o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, or p,p'-DDMU for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, and Salton Sea GS10.Twenty-eight water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2004 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The locations Salton Sea NW1, GS3, GS5, and GS10 were sampled in May and October of 2002. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside215102012o-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50972010State Reviewed o-DichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved290Twenty-nine water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at six locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 17000 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS9.Twenty-nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside215102012o-Dichlorobenzene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347482012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167497o-DichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 2-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 17,000 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside293722012o-Xylene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess o-Xylene consistent with Listing Policy section 3.1. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of o-Xylene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Because there are no appropriate evaluation guidelines, staff are unable to make a Listing decision.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing these water segment-pollutant combinations on the section 303(d) list.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of o-Xylene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   299172010State Reviewed o-XyleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved17 Seventeen water quality samples were collected and analyzed from 10/2002 through 5/2004 at six locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2006).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin- Region 7. May 2002 - May 2004.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (CRBRWQCB, 2006).No evaluation guideline for the dissolved fraction of o-Xylene for the protection of human, animal or aquatic life in fresh waters could be found that met the requirements of Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS9.Seventeen water samples were collected. Water samples were collected and analyzed in October of 2002 from the Salton Sea NW1, GS2, GS3, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations. Additional samples were collect from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 sampling locations in April and November of 2003, and May of 2004. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214862012p,p'-DDE Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Original       YNNNRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. This line of evidence received a Use Rating of Insufficient Information because there was only one sample reported in the line of evidence. According to Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy, the minimum number of samples required is 2. The sample exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of 1 sediment sample exceeded the sediment quality guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   48762010State Reviewed p,p'-DDECommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved11Thirty-six water samples were taken at eight locations on the Salton Sea. Thirty-five water sample results could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The one acceptable water sample, collected near the center of the Salton Sea (GS9) location on 4/10/2003, exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria of 0.00059 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-six water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214742012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   347872012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 1675421, 4 -dichlorobenzeneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal80Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Salton Sea to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 8 samples exceed the criterion for 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe 1, 4-Dichlorobenzene criteria for the protection of human health from consumption of organisms only is 2,600 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000).1.Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition  Data for this line of evidence for Salton Sea was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2]Data was collected over the time period 10/26/2005-5/3/2006.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside214742012p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The LOEs were combined to determine the final use support rating. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 37 water samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   50902010State Reviewed p-Dichlorobenzene (DCB)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved290Twenty-nine water quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at six locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total samples, none exceeded the CTR Criteria (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)California Toxics Rule (CTR) Criteria 2600 ug/l for the protection of human health when consuming organisms from aquatic systems (USEPA, 2000).1.Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS7, and Salton Sea GS9.Twenty-nine water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213742012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of 76 samples exceeded the Basin plan water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   328102012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21873pHWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone200None of the 20 samples were outside the pH range specified in the water quality objective.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGBasin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected at stations: Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2, Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, and Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09.Data were collected 10/26/2005-10/29/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213742012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of 76 samples exceeded the Basin plan water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   49162010State Reviewed pH (high)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal353Thirty-five water quality measurements were generally collected biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, at 8 locations in the Salton Sea. Of these total measurements, 3 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences were found in measurements collected on 4/10/2003, and 5/11/2005 from two different locations in the Salton Sea (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Samples were collected from the following Salton Sea location: Salton Sea Drain NW1, Salton Sea Drain NW2, Salton Sea GS2, Salton Sea GS3, Salton Sea GS5, Salton Sea GS7, Salton Sea GS9, Salton Sea GS10.Thirty-five water samples were collected. Water samples were generally collected and analyzed biannually, in May and October, from 5/2002 through 5/2005 from the Salton Sea NW2, GS2, GS7, and GS9 locations. The rest of the locations were sampled in May and October 2002. Samples were not collected from each location every sampling round. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside213742012pH Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of 76 samples exceeded the Basin plan water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   53342010State Reviewed pHWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterNone210Twenty-one water quality measurements were taken at 10 locations in the Salton Sea, generally collected from 7/1998 through 9/2002. Of these total measurements , none exceeded the Basin Plan Objective (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: Since the regional waters are somewhat alkaline, pH shall range from 6.0-9.0 (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Measurements were collected at the following Salton Sea locations: USGS Station No. 333006116031501 near the mouth of the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel, USGS Station No. 332958116023501 in the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel Delta, USGS Station No. 332908116011501 between North Basin and Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel, USGS Station No. 332637115512001 in Salt Creek Delta, USGS Station No. 331400115450001 near center of South Basin, USGS Station No. 331215115410001 between South Basin and New and Alamo River Deltas, USGS Station No. 330835115434501 in New River Delta, USGS Station No. 331023115473701 in San Felipe Creek Delta, USGS Station No. 330803115414001 near the mouth of New River, and USGS Station No. 331242115371401 near the mouth of Alamo River.Twenty-one measurements were collected. Measurements were collected from 7/1998 through 9/2002. Seven measurements were collected from 1998, no measurements were collected from 1999, no measurements were collected in 2000, 5 measurements were collected in 2001, and 9 measurements were collected in 2002. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSan Felipe Creek (Imperial and San Diego Counties)CAR7222000020000127085616River & Stream 10722.200000,10722.300000,10722.400000,10728.000000,4903.31000018100203000066,18100203000084,18100203000134,18100203000166,18100203000170,18100203000199,18100203000206,18100203000244,18100203000251,18100203000253,(Total Count: 79)180703030105,181002030401,181002030404,181002030406,181002030702,181002030703,181002030803,181002041204,181002041400Imperial,San Diego212282012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 5437 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. No new data were assessed in current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 3 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   54372010State Reviewed SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal30Three whole fish composite samples were taken at 1 location in the creek. The fish samples were generally collected in 10/1986 and 7/87. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 7400 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the following San Felipe Creek locations: downstream of the Highway 86 bridge and in the San Sebastion Marsh.Fish tissue samples were collected on 10/16/1986 and 7/07/1987. Three whole fish composite samples of redbelly tilapia, sailfin molly, and mosquitofish were collected. One redbelly tilapia whole fish composite sample was collected on 7/07/1987. One sailfin molly whole fish composite sample was collected on 7/07/1987. One mosquitofish whole fish composite sample was collected on 10/16/1986. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSenator Wash ReservoirCAL7155000020091211042204Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104013559150301041310,150301041311Imperial307872012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guidelines and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464352012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671728AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Senator Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Senator Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Senator Wash Reservoir - 715TS0339]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSenator Wash ReservoirCAL7155000020091211042204Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104013559150301041310,150301041311Imperial322242012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue guidelines or the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464432012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671730ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Senator Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Senator Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Senator Wash Reservoir - 715TS0339]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSenator Wash ReservoirCAL7155000020091211042204Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104013559150301041310,150301041311Imperial322242012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue guidelines or the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464422012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671729ChlordaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Senator Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Senator Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Senator Wash Reservoir - 715TS0339]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSenator Wash ReservoirCAL7155000020091211042204Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104013559150301041310,150301041311Imperial307892012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guidelines and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463842012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671733DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Senator Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Senator Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Senator Wash Reservoir - 715TS0339]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSenator Wash ReservoirCAL7155000020091211042204Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104013559150301041310,150301041311Imperial307892012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guidelines and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463852012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671734DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Senator Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Senator Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Senator Wash Reservoir - 715TS0339]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSenator Wash ReservoirCAL7155000020091211042204Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104013559150301041310,150301041311Imperial322252012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue guidelines or the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464032012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671738EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Senator Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Senator Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Senator Wash Reservoir - 715TS0339]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSenator Wash ReservoirCAL7155000020091211042204Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104013559150301041310,150301041311Imperial322252012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue guidelines or the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464022012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671737EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Senator Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Senator Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Senator Wash Reservoir - 715TS0339]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSenator Wash ReservoirCAL7155000020091211042204Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104013559150301041310,150301041311Imperial322232012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guidelines and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464182012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671741HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Senator Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Senator Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Senator Wash Reservoir - 715TS0339]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSenator Wash ReservoirCAL7155000020091211042204Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104013559150301041310,150301041311Imperial322262012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guidelines and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464272012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671743Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Senator Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Senator Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Senator Wash Reservoir - 715TS0339]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSenator Wash ReservoirCAL7155000020091211042204Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104013559150301041310,150301041311Imperial322262012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guidelines and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464192012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671742Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Senator Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in fish tissue is 0.93 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking WaterData for this line of evidence for Senator Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Senator Wash Reservoir - 715TS0339]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSenator Wash ReservoirCAL7155000020091211042204Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104013559150301041310,150301041311Imperial321302012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464282012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671744Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Senator Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobenzene. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue is 2.8 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Senator Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Senator Wash Reservoir - 715TS0339]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSenator Wash ReservoirCAL7155000020091211042204Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104013559150301041310,150301041311Imperial307942012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue guidelines or the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464112012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671740Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Senator Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Senator Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Senator Wash Reservoir - 715TS0339]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSenator Wash ReservoirCAL7155000020091211042204Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104013559150301041310,150301041311Imperial307942012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue guidelines or the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464102012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671739Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Senator Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in fish tissue is 4.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Senator Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Senator Wash Reservoir - 715TS0339]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSenator Wash ReservoirCAL7155000020091211042204Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104013559150301041310,150301041311Imperial307882012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464362012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671745MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Senator Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. Eleven composites (1 fish per composite) were generated from one species (largemouth bass) and were averaged. Two composites for common carp could not be used in the assessment due to total fish lengths that did not fall within lengths noted in the guideline. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish (150 - 500 mm; fillet wet weight) is 0.20 mg/kg.1.Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001Data for this line of evidence for Senator Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Senator Wash Reservoir - 715TS0339]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSenator Wash ReservoirCAL7155000020091211042204Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104013559150301041310,150301041311Imperial321312012Mirex Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One fish tissue sample was collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464372012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671746MirexCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Senator Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Mirex. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in fish tissue is 0.28 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens.Data for this line of evidence for Senator Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Senator Wash Reservoir - 715TS0339]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSenator Wash ReservoirCAL7155000020091211042204Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104013559150301041310,150301041311Imperial322322012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue guidelines or the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464442012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671747PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Senator Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for polychlorinated biphenyls in fish tissue is 2.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Senator Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Senator Wash Reservoir - 715TS0339]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSenator Wash ReservoirCAL7155000020091211042204Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104013559150301041310,150301041311Imperial322322012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue guidelines or the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   464452012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671748PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Senator Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total PCB concentration of 500 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Senator Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Senator Wash Reservoir - 715TS0339]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSenator Wash ReservoirCAL7155000020091211042204Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104013559150301041310,150301041311Imperial321322012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462902012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671749SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Senator Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. The 1 sample for common carp consisted of 2 composites (5 fish per composite) that were not independent and so were averaged. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenium in fish tissue is 7.4 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A background dietary consumption rate of 0.114 mg/day is applied for this micronutrient.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Senator Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Senator Wash Reservoir - 715TS0339]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSenator Wash ReservoirCAL7155000020091211042204Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104013559150301041310,150301041311Imperial322332012Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue guidelines or the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462882012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671731Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Senator Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Senator Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Senator Wash Reservoir - 715TS0339]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSenator Wash ReservoirCAL7155000020091211042204Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104013559150301041310,150301041311Imperial322332012Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue guidelines or the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462892012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671732Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Senator Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Senator Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Senator Wash Reservoir - 715TS0339]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSenator Wash ReservoirCAL7155000020091211042204Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104013559150301041310,150301041311Imperial322342012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue guidelines or the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463942012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671736alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Senator Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Endosulfan concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Senator Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Senator Wash Reservoir - 715TS0339]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSenator Wash ReservoirCAL7155000020091211042204Lake & Reservoir 10715.50000015030104013559150301041310,150301041311Imperial322342012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded either the NAS fish tissue guidelines or the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463932012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671735alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Senator Wash Reservoir to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: common carp. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in fish tissue is 13,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Senator Wash Reservoir was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Senator Wash Reservoir - 715TS0339]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 10/24/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSunbeam LakeCAL7231000020000127134040Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000390,18100204001309181002040902Imperial310252012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue sample exceeded the NAS fish tissue guidelines and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462052012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671509AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Sunbeam Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. Four composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: channel catfish and largemouth bass. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Sunbeam Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Sunbeam Lake - 723SUNBLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSunbeam LakeCAL7231000020000127134040Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000390,18100204001309181002040902Imperial310232012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Seven fish tissue samples were collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465552012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) ArsenicCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Sunbeam Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. Seven composites were generated from two species: channel catfish and largemouth bass. Composites were comprised of 2-3 fish per composite for channel catfish and 1 fish per composite for largemouth bass. Seven samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for arsenic in fish tissue is 0.0034 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. It is assumed that 10% of the total arsenic is present as inorganic arsenic. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Sunbeam Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Sunbeam Lake - 723SUNBLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/8/2004. The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSunbeam LakeCAL7231000020000127134040Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000390,18100204001309181002040902Imperial322362012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465562012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) CadmiumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Sunbeam Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. Seven composites were generated from two species: channel catfish and largemouth bass. Composites were comprised of 2-3 fish per composite for channel catfish and 1 fish per composite for largemouth bass. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for cadmium in fish tissue is 2.2 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Sunbeam Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Sunbeam Lake - 723SUNBLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/8/2004. The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSunbeam LakeCAL7231000020000127134040Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000390,18100204001309181002040902Imperial322392012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline or the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462062012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671513ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Sunbeam Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. Four composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: channel catfish and largemouth bass. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Sunbeam Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Sunbeam Lake - 723SUNBLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSunbeam LakeCAL7231000020000127134040Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000390,18100204001309181002040902Imperial322392012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline or the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465572012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) ChlordaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Sunbeam Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. Four composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: channel catfish and largemouth bass. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Sunbeam Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Sunbeam Lake - 723SUNBLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/8/2004. The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSunbeam LakeCAL7231000020000127134040Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000390,18100204001309181002040902Imperial322422012Chlorpyrifos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465582012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) ChlorpyrifosCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Sunbeam Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. Four composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: channel catfish and largemouth bass. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for chlorpyrifos in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Sunbeam Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Sunbeam Lake - 723SUNBLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/8/2004. The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSunbeam LakeCAL7231000020000127134040Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000390,18100204001309181002040902Imperial310242012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465602012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) DiazinonCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Sunbeam Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. Four composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: channel catfish and largemouth bass. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for diazinon in fish tissue is 1,500 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Sunbeam Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Sunbeam Lake - 723SUNBLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/8/2004. The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSunbeam LakeCAL7231000020000127134040Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000390,18100204001309181002040902Imperial310272012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462082012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671519DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Sunbeam Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. Four composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: channel catfish and largemouth bass. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Sunbeam Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Sunbeam Lake - 723SUNBLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSunbeam LakeCAL7231000020000127134040Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000390,18100204001309181002040902Imperial310272012Dieldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465612012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Sunbeam Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. Four composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: channel catfish and largemouth bass. sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Sunbeam Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Sunbeam Lake - 723SUNBLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/8/2004. The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSunbeam LakeCAL7231000020000127134040Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000390,18100204001309181002040902Imperial310262012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline or the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462202012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671521EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Sunbeam Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. Four composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: channel catfish and largemouth bass. Total endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Endosulfan concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Sunbeam Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Sunbeam Lake - 723SUNBLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSunbeam LakeCAL7231000020000127134040Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000390,18100204001309181002040902Imperial310262012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline or the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465622012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) EndosulfanCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Sunbeam Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. Four composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: channel catfish and largemouth bass. Total endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in fish tissue is 13,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Sunbeam Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Sunbeam Lake - 723SUNBLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/8/2004. The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSunbeam LakeCAL7231000020000127134040Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000390,18100204001309181002040902Imperial322402012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline or the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462212012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671523EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Sunbeam Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. Four composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: channel catfish and largemouth bass. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Sunbeam Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Sunbeam Lake - 723SUNBLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSunbeam LakeCAL7231000020000127134040Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000390,18100204001309181002040902Imperial322402012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline or the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465632012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Sunbeam Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. Four composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: channel catfish and largemouth bass. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Sunbeam Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Sunbeam Lake - 723SUNBLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/8/2004. The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSunbeam LakeCAL7231000020000127134040Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000390,18100204001309181002040902Imperial322352012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guidelines and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462232012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671526HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Sunbeam Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. Four composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: channel catfish and largemouth bass. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Sunbeam Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Sunbeam Lake - 723SUNBLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSunbeam LakeCAL7231000020000127134040Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000390,18100204001309181002040902Imperial322452012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465652012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Sunbeam Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. Four composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: channel catfish and largemouth bass. Four samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in fish tissue is 0.93 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking WaterData for this line of evidence for Sunbeam Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Sunbeam Lake - 723SUNBLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/8/2004. The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSunbeam LakeCAL7231000020000127134040Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000390,18100204001309181002040902Imperial322452012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462352012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671528Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Sunbeam Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. Four composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: channel catfish and largemouth bass. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Sunbeam Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Sunbeam Lake - 723SUNBLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSunbeam LakeCAL7231000020000127134040Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000390,18100204001309181002040902Imperial322442012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465662012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Sunbeam Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobenzene. Four composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: channel catfish and largemouth bass. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue is 2.8 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Sunbeam Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Sunbeam Lake - 723SUNBLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/8/2004. The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSunbeam LakeCAL7231000020000127134040Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000390,18100204001309181002040902Imperial322412012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline or the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465642012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Sunbeam Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. Four composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: channel catfish and largemouth bass. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in fish tissue is 4.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Sunbeam Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Sunbeam Lake - 723SUNBLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/8/2004. The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSunbeam LakeCAL7231000020000127134040Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000390,18100204001309181002040902Imperial322412012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded either the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline or the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462222012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671525Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Sunbeam Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. Four composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: channel catfish and largemouth bass. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Sunbeam Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Sunbeam Lake - 723SUNBLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSunbeam LakeCAL7231000020000127134040Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000390,18100204001309181002040902Imperial322372012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465672012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Sunbeam Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. Seven composites were generated from two species: largemouth bass and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 1 fish per composite for largemouth bass and 2-3 fish per composite for channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish (150 - 500 mm; fillet wet weight) is 0.20 mg/kg.1.Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001Data for this line of evidence for Sunbeam Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Sunbeam Lake - 723SUNBLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/8/2004. The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSunbeam LakeCAL7231000020000127134040Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000390,18100204001309181002040902Imperial322432012Mirex Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Four fish tissue samples were collected, but not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465682012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) MirexCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Sunbeam Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Mirex. Four composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: channel catfish and largemouth bass. Four samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in fish tissue is 0.28 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001Data for this line of evidence for Sunbeam Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Sunbeam Lake - 723SUNBLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/8/2004. The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSunbeam LakeCAL7231000020000127134040Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000390,18100204001309181002040902Imperial322472012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of two fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and none of two fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465692012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet21Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Sunbeam Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. Four composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: channel catfish and largemouth bass. Composites were averaged for species collected at the same time and location. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for Tilapia spp. and flathead catfish.Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006he modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for polychlorinated biphenyls in fish tissue is 2.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Sunbeam Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Sunbeam Lake - 723SUNBLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/8/2004. The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSunbeam LakeCAL7231000020000127134040Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000390,18100204001309181002040902Imperial322472012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of two fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and none of two fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462362012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671533PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Sunbeam Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. Four composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: channel catfish and largemouth bass. Composites were averaged for species collected at the same time and location. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total PCB concentration of 500 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Sunbeam Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Sunbeam Lake - 723SUNBLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSunbeam LakeCAL7231000020000127134040Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000390,18100204001309181002040902Imperial322382012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465702012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Sunbeam Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. Four composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: channel catfish and largemouth bass. Composites were comprised of 2-3 fish per composite for channel catfish and 1 fish per composite for largemouth bass. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenium in fish tissue is 7.4 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A background dietary consumption rate of 0.114 mg/day is applied for this micronutrient.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Sunbeam Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Sunbeam Lake - 723SUNBLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/8/2004. The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSunbeam LakeCAL7231000020000127134040Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000390,18100204001309181002040902Imperial310282012Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of two fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and none of two fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462072012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671516Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Sunbeam Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. Four composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: channel catfish and largemouth bass. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total DDT concentration of 1000 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Sunbeam Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Sunbeam Lake - 723SUNBLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSunbeam LakeCAL7231000020000127134040Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000390,18100204001309181002040902Imperial310282012Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. One of two fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal, and none of two fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465592012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet21Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Sunbeam Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. Four composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: channel catfish and largemouth bass. Total DDT was calculated as the sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total DDT in fish tissue is 15 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Sunbeam Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Sunbeam Lake - 723SUNBLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/8/2004. The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSunbeam LakeCAL7231000020000127134040Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000390,18100204001309181002040902Imperial322462012Toxaphene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462372012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671536ToxapheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Sunbeam Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. Four composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: channel catfish and largemouth bass. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Toxaphene concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Sunbeam Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Sunbeam Lake - 723SUNBLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/8/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSunbeam LakeCAL7231000020000127134040Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204000390,18100204001309181002040902Imperial322462012Toxaphene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue evaluation guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   465712012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) ToxapheneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Sunbeam Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. Four composites (2 - 3 fish per composite) were generated from two species: channel catfish and largemouth bass. Four samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for toxaphene in fish tissue is 4.3 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Sunbeam Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Sunbeam Lake - 723SUNBLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/8/2004. The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial212292012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462512012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671538AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial212292012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462922012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671751AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial212292012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462912012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671750AldrinCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial212292012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55722010State Reviewed AldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal20Two fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the lake. The samples were generally collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. Of these two samples, neither exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the interior of Wiest Lake.Two largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial212292012Aldrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462382012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671537AldrinCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Aldrin. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Aldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial212772012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55602010State Reviewed ArsenicCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal10Two fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in lake. One fish fillet sample result could not be used in this assessment because the constituent was not analyzed for in the sample. The 1 fish fillet sample that was acceptable was generally collected in 12/1999. This sample did not exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 1 mg/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the interior of Wiest Lake.Two largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial212772012Arsenic Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462522012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671539ArsenicCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Six samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for arsenic in fish tissue is 0.0034 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. It is assumed that 10% of the total arsenic is present as inorganic arsenic. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial310192012Cadmium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462532012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671540CadmiumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for cadmium in fish tissue is 2.2 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial210642012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462542012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671541ChlordaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial210642012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462662012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671542ChlordaneCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial210642012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462672012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671543ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial210642012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462932012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671752ChlordaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for total chlordane in fish tissue is 3.9 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial210642012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462942012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671753ChlordaneCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial210642012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462952012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671754ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, Total. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total chlordane was calculated as the sum of the following chlordane isomers: cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Chlordane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial210642012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55492010State Reviewed ChlordaneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal20Two fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the lake. The samples were generally collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. Of these two samples, neither exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 5.6 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the interior of Wiest Lake.Two largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial210642012Chlordane Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55802010State Reviewed ChlordaneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal20Two fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the lake. The samples were generally collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. Of these two samples, neither exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the interior of Wiest Lake.Two largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial210652012Chlorpyrifos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55502010State Reviewed ChlorpyrifosCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal20Two fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the lake. The samples were generally collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. Of these two samples, neither exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 10000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the interior of Wiest Lake.Two largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial210652012Chlorpyrifos Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceeds the water quality objectives.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462682012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671544ChlorpyrifosCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for chlorpyrifos in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial210672012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55522010State Reviewed DiazinonCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal20Two fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the lake. The samples were generally collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. Of these two samples, neither exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 300 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the interior of Wiest Lake.Two largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial210672012Diazinon Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of two fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462822012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671548DiazinonCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for diazinon in fish tissue is 1,500 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial211342012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of four fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56062010State Reviewed EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal20Two fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the lake. The samples were generally collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. Of these two samples, neither exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the interior of Wiest Lake.Two largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial211342012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of four fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461772012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671554EndosulfanWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Total endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Endosulfan concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial211342012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of four fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460972012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671553EndosulfanCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Total endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Endosulfan concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial211342012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of four fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   460962012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671552EndosulfanCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan, Total. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Total endosulfan was calculated as the sum of endosulfan l and endosulfan ll. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in fish tissue is 13,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial211342012Endosulfan Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of four fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55532010State Reviewed EndosulfanCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal20Two fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the lake. The samples were generally collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. Of these two samples, neither exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 20,000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the interior of Wiest Lake.Two largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial211432012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55542010State Reviewed EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal20Two fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the lake. The samples were generally collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. Of these two samples, neither exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 1000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the interior of Wiest Lake.Two largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial211432012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56142010State Reviewed EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal20Two fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the lake. The samples were generally collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. Of these two samples, neither exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the interior of Wiest Lake.Two largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial211432012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463072012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671766EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial211432012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463062012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671765EndrinCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial211432012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463052012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671764EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial211432012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461802012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671557EndrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial211432012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461792012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671556EndrinCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Endrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial211432012Endrin Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461782012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671555EndrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endrin in fish tissue is 660 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial211442012Ethion Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 5555 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 fish tissue samples exceeded the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment fish tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   55552010State Reviewed EthionCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal20Two fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the lake. The samples were generally collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. Of these two samples, neither exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 2000 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the interior of Wiest Lake.Two largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial211452012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56242010State Reviewed HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal20Two fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the lake. The samples were generally collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. Of these two samples, neither exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the interior of Wiest Lake.Two largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial211452012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462092012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671562HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial211452012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461962012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671561HeptachlorCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial211452012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463112012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671770HeptachlorCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial211452012Heptachlor Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463122012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671771HeptachlorWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial214422012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462122012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671565Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial214422012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463152012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671774Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial214422012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463142012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671773Heptachlor epoxideCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial214422012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463132012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671772Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in fish tissue is 0.93 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking WaterData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial214422012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462112012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671564Heptachlor epoxideCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Heptachlor Epoxide concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial214422012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462102012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671563Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Heptachlor epoxide. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Six samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for heptachlor epoxide in fish tissue is 0.93 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Public Health Goal for Heptachlor and Heptachlor Epoxide in Drinking WaterData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial214422012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56332010State Reviewed Heptachlor epoxideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal20Two fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the lake. The samples were generally collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. Of these two samples, neither exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the interior of Wiest Lake.Two largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial214422012Heptachlor epoxide Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55562010State Reviewed Heptachlor epoxideCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal10Two fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in lake. One fish fillet sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentrations. The 1 fish fillet sample that was acceptable was generally collected in 12/1999. This sample did not exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value. (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 4 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the interior of Wiest Lake.Two largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993). 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial214432012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of three fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55572010State Reviewed Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal20Two fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the lake. The samples were generally collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. Of these two samples, neither exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 20 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the interior of Wiest Lake.Two largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial214432012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of three fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462242012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671566Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobenzene. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue is 2.8 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial214432012Hexachlorobenzene/ HCB Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of three fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463162012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671775Hexachlorobenzene/ HCBCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Hexachlorobenzene. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for hexachlorobenzene in fish tissue is 2.8 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial214552012Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (mixture) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYRegional Board Conclusion:This pollutant was considered for placement on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle.No new information was reviewed for this current assessment cycle. However, a use rating of the LOE No. 6733 is changed from fully supporting to insufficient information due to insufficient sample size required by the Listing Policy to determine if the water quality objectives are met. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 2 fish tissue samples exceeded the National Academy of Sciences fish tissue guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.No new data were assessed for this assessment cycle. The conclusion reached in the previous cycle remains the same. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available in a future assessment cycle.   67332010State Reviewed Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) (mixture)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal20Two fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the lake. The samples were generally collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. Of these two samples, neither exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the interior of Wiest Lake.Two largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial212932012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463092012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671768Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Cold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial212932012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55582010State Reviewed Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal20Two fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the lake. The samples were generally collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. Of these two samples, neither exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 30 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the interior of Wiest Lake.Two largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial212932012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   67412010State Reviewed Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal20Two fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the lake. The samples were generally collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. Of these two samples, neither exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the interior of Wiest Lake.Two largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial212932012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461932012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671558Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in fish tissue is 4.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial212932012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461942012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671559Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Cold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial212932012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463102012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671769Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial212932012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   461952012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671560Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Lindane concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial212932012Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463082012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671767Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for lindane in fish tissue is 4.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Air Toxics Hotspots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Part ll Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Values.Data for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial310202012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of three fish tissue samples exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462252012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671567MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. Five composites were generated from two species: channel catfish and black crappie. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish per composite for channel catfish and 3-4 fish per composite for black crappie. One composite could not be used in the assessment due to a total fish length that did not fall within lengths noted in the guideline. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish (150 - 500 mm; fillet wet weight) is 0.20 mg/kg.1.Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001Data for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial310202012Mercury Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of three fish tissue samples exceeded the USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463172012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671776MercuryCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. One composite (5 fish per composite) was generated from one species: black crappie. One composite for channel catfish could not be used in the assessment due to a total fish length that did not fall within lengths noted in the guideline. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The USEPA 304(a) recommended water quality criterion for concentrations of methylmercury in fish tissue of trophic level 4 fish (150 - 500 mm; fillet wet weight) is 0.20 mg/kg.1.Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001Data for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial310212012Mirex Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Seven composite samples were collected for Mirex, but all samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Due to zero acceptable sample size, staff cannot determine if the water quality objectives are met.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462262012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671568MirexCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Mirex. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Six samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in fish tissue is 0.28 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens.Data for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial310212012Mirex Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Seven composite samples were collected for Mirex, but all samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. Due to zero acceptable sample size, staff cannot determine if the water quality objectives are met.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463182012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671777MirexCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Mirex. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for mirex in fish tissue is 0.28 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Expedited Cancer Potency Values and Proposed Regulatory Levels for Certain Proposition 65 Carcinogens.Data for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial213052012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   54452010State Reviewed SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal20Two fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in lake. The sample were generally collected in 10/1998 and 12/1999. Of these total samples, none exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 7400 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the interior of Wiest Lake.Two largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies a Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial213052012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462412012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671572SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenium in fish tissue is 7.4 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A background dietary consumption rate of 0.114 mg/day is applied for this micronutrient.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial213052012Selenium Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of five fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463302012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671781SeleniumCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for selenium in fish tissue is 7.4 ppm. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A background dietary consumption rate of 0.114 mg/day is applied for this micronutrient.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial221632012Toxaphene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of four fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   55592010State Reviewed ToxapheneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal10Two fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in lake. One fish fillet sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentration. The 1 fish fillet sample that was acceptable was generally collected in 12/1999. This sample did not exceeded the OEHHA Screening Value. (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Screening Value of 30 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 1999).1.Prevalence of Selected Target Chemical Contaminants in Sport Fish From Two California Lakes: Public health designed screening study. Sacramento, CA: Office of Environmental Health Hazard AssessmentSamples were collected from the interior of Wiest Lake.Two largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial221632012Toxaphene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of four fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   56572010State Reviewed ToxapheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal20Two fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the lake. The samples were generally collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. Of these two samples, neither exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the interior of Wiest Lake.Two largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial221632012Toxaphene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of four fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462562012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671575ToxapheneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Toxaphene concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial221632012Toxaphene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of four fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462422012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671573ToxapheneCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet00Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Six samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for toxaphene in fish tissue is 4.3 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial221632012Toxaphene Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of four fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   462552012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671574ToxapheneCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Toxaphene. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Toxaphene concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial310222012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463032012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671762alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Cold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Endosulfan concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial310222012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463022012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671761alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for endosulfan (l and ll) in fish tissue is 13,000 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene 2.Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use In Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and AnalysisData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial310222012alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1) Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised       YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. None of one fish tissue samples exceeded the NAS fish tissue guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 16 samples is needed for application of table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.   463042012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671763alpha-Endosulfan (Endosulfan 1)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endosulfan I. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total Endosulfan concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial304882012ChlorideSource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Ten of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Ten of 12 water samples exceed the USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   331022012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 24337ChlorideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal121010 of the 12 samples exceeded the criteria of 230 mg/L.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Chloride criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 230000 ug/L (230 mg/L)(USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006).1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology  Samples were collected at stations 723ARGRB1 (Alamo River Outlet) and 723ARINTL (Alamo River at International Boundary).Samples were collected on 10/26/2005, 5/1/2006, 5/7/2007, 10/23/2007, 4/21/2008, and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial311802012MalathionSource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of three water samples exceeded the UC Davis Criteria for Malathion for the protection of aquatic organisms and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   355892012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 167970MalathionWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal33Twelve samples total were collected. Three samples were detected at levels above the evaluation guideline resulting in 3 exceedances. Nine samples were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit was above the guideline and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The UC Davis Criteria for Malathion for the protection of aquatic organisms is a 4 day average of 0.028 ug/L.1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: l. Organophosphate insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:1-48.Data for this line of evidence for Alamo River was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ Alamo River Outlet, Alamo River at International Boundary]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial193452012ToxicitySource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment Toxicity LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. Six of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 12 sediment samples exhibit toxicity and one of 4 water samples exhibit toxicity when compared to a control. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   29122006State Reviewed ToxicityWarm Freshwater Habitat ToxicityWaterTotal41Toxicity testing data generated from 4 water samples. One of these samples was toxic (SWAMP, 2004).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedBasin Plan: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Significant toxicity as compared to control.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Two stations were sampled, one at the international boundary with Mexico and the other at the outlet (mouth) of Alamo River in to the Salton Sea.All samples were taken during the spring (May) and the fall (October) of 2002.The Alamo River flows from Mexico through the Imperial Valley in the Salton Sea. Most of the water flowing through it comes from agricultural return flows.SWAMP QAPP. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial193452012ToxicitySource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment Toxicity LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. Six of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 12 sediment samples exhibit toxicity and one of 4 water samples exhibit toxicity when compared to a control. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   29132006State Reviewed ToxicityWarm Freshwater Habitat ToxicitySedimentTotal31Toxicity testing data generated for 3 sediment samples. One of these samples was toxic (SWAMP, 2004).1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Not SpecifiedBasin Plan: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Significant toxicity as compared to control.1.Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)Two stations were sampled, one at the international boundary with Mexico and the other at the outlet (mouth) of Alamo River into the Salton Sea.All samples taken during the spring (May) and the fall (October) of 2002.The Alamo River flows from Mexico through the Imperial Valley in the Salton Sea. Most of the water flowing through it comes from agricultural return flows.SWAMP QAPP. 
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial193452012ToxicitySource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment Toxicity LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. Six of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 12 sediment samples exhibit toxicity and one of 4 water samples exhibit toxicity when compared to a control. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   320272012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 20286ToxicityWarm Freshwater Habitat ToxicityWaterNone110Eleven samples were collected to evaluate water toxicity. None of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival of Hyalella azteca, survival snd biomass of Pimephales promelas and survival and reproduction of Ceriodaphnia dubia. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008TOXICITY TESTINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 7 Basin Plan.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S eguals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL equals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance.1.Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013The samples were collected at stations 723ARINTL and 723ARGRB1.The samples were collected from October 2005 to 2008 during the months of April, May and October. Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and follwed SWAMP protocols.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial193452012ToxicitySource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment Toxicity LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. Six of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 12 sediment samples exhibit toxicity and one of 4 water samples exhibit toxicity when compared to a control. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   320282012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 20287ToxicityWarm Freshwater Habitat ToxicitySedimentNone84Eight samples were collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. Four of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008TOXICITY TESTINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 7 Basin Plan.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S eguals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL equals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance.1.Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064The samples were collected at stations 723ARINTL and 723ARGRB1.The samples were collected from October 2005 to 2008 during the months of April, May and October. Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and follwed SWAMP protocols.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionAlamo RiverCAR7231000019990205093023River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001650,18100204001663,18100204001802,18100204002055,18100204002082,18100204002523,18100204002548,18100204002615,18100204002684,18100204002797,(Total Count: 32)181002040702,181002040703,181002040704,181002040705,181002040707Imperial193452012ToxicitySource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All three sediment Toxicity LOEs are combined for a use rating determination. Six of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 12 sediment samples exhibit toxicity and one of 4 water samples exhibit toxicity when compared to a control. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   320292012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 20288ToxicityWarm Freshwater Habitat ToxicitySedimentNone11One sample was collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. The one sample exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided).1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008TOXICITY TESTINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 7 Basin Plan.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S eguals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL equals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance.1.Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064The samples were collected at station 723ARGRB1.The sample was collected in October 2008. Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and follwed SWAMP protocols.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305222012Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)Source UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Four of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Four of seven water samples exceed the USEPA recommended freshwater aquatic life ambient water quality criteria for total ammonia as nitrogen and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   324062012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21718Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal74Four of seven samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for total ammonia as nitrogen. All of the exceedances occurred from October 2005 to May 2006.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Basin Plan objective for toxicity states that all waters shall be mainted free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or indigienous aquatic life.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The USEPA recommended freshwater aquatic life ambient water quality criteria for total ammonia as nitrogen is based on pH, temperature, and the presence of early life stages of fish. The continuous concentration used is based on a 30-day average and the absence of early life stages of fish.1.1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for AmmoniaSamples were collected at stations Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet (719CVSCOT) and Coachella Valley Stormchannel [Ave 52] (719CVSC52).Coachella Valley Stormchannel [Ave 52] samples were collected from October 2005 through May 2006. Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel Outlet samples were collected from May 2006 through October 2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305272012ToxicitySource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Three of nine water samples exhibit toxicity when compared to a control and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   320192012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 20085ToxicityWarm Freshwater Habitat ToxicitySedimentNone10One sample was collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. The sample did not exhibit significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided).1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008TOXICITY TESTINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 7 Basin Plan.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S eguals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL equals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance.1.Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064The sample was collected at station 719CVSCOT.The sample was collected in October 2008. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and follwed SWAMP protocols.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305272012ToxicitySource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Three of nine water samples exhibit toxicity when compared to a control and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   320182012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 20084ToxicityWarm Freshwater Habitat ToxicitySedimentNone50Five samples were collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. None of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008TOXICITY TESTINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 7 Basin Plan.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S eguals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL equals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance.1.Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064The samples were collected at station 719CVSCOT.The samples were collected from May 2006 to April 2008. Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and follwed SWAMP protocols.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionCoachella Valley Storm Water ChannelCAR7194700019990205111415River & Stream 10719.470000,10728.00000018100201000742,18100201000894,18100201001109,18100201001738,18100201002126,18100201002531,18100201002647,18100201002730181002010609,181002010705,181002010802,181002010804Riverside305272012ToxicitySource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Three of nine water samples exhibit toxicity when compared to a control and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   319752012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 20083ToxicityWarm Freshwater Habitat ToxicityWaterNone72Seven samples were collected to evaluate water toxicity. Two of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival and reproduction of Ceriodaphnia dubia and survival and biomass of Pimephales promelas. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008TOXICITY TESTINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 7 Basin Plan.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S eguals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL equals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance.1.Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013The samples were collected at stations 719CVSC52 and 719CVSCOT.The samples were collected from October 2005 to October 2008. Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and follwed SWAMP protocols.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305512012ToxicitySource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Three of six water samples exhibit toxicity when compared to control samples and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   319722012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 20079ToxicityWarm Freshwater Habitat ToxicityWaterNone63Six samples were collected to evaluate water toxicity. Three of the samples exhibited significant toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia reproduction. The toxicity test included survival and reproduction of Ceriodaphnia dubia and survial and biomass of Pimephales promelas. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008TOXICITY TESTINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 7 Basin Plan.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S eguals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL eequals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance.1.Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013The samples were collected at station 713CRNVBD.The samples were collected in October and April 2008, October 2005 and May 2007. Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and follwed SWAMP protocols.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (California-Nevada border to Lake Havasu)CAR7132000020080709122810River & Stream 10713.100000,10713.200000,10713.30000015030101000007,15030101000008,15030101000009,15030101000010,15030101000011,15030101000012,15030101000013,15030101000016,15030101001902,15030101001903,(Total Count: 13)150301010307,150301010405,150301010409,150301010412,150301010702San Bernardino305512012ToxicitySource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Three of six water samples exhibit toxicity when compared to control samples and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   321732012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21055ToxicityCold Freshwater Habitat ToxicityWaterNone63Six samples were collected to evaluate water toxicity. Three of the samples exhibited significant toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia reproduction. The toxicity test included survival and reproduction of Ceriodaphnia dubia and survial and biomass of Pimephales promelas. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008TOXICITY TESTINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 4 Basin Plan.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S eguals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL eequals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance.1.Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013The samples were collected at station 713CRNVBD.The samples were collected in October and April 2008, October 2005 and May 2007. Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and follwed SWAMP protocols.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306662012ToxicitySource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of eight water samples exhibit toxicity when compared to control samples and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   319732012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 20081ToxicityWarm Freshwater Habitat ToxicityWaterNone82Eight samples were collected to evaluate water toxicity. Two of the samples exhibited significant toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia reproduction. The toxicity test included survival and reproduction of Ceriodaphnia dubia and survial and biomass of Pimephales promelas. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008TOXICITY TESTINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 7 Basin Plan.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S eguals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL equals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance.1.Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013The samples were collected at station 715CRIDG1.The samples were collected in April 2008, October 2005, 2007 and 2008 and May 2007 and 2006. Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and follwed SWAMP protocols.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionColorado River and Associated Lakes and Reservoirs (Lake Havasu Dam to Imperial Dam)CAR7151000020080709112211River & Stream 10714.000000,10715.100000,10715.200000,10715.300000,10715.400000,10715.500000,10727.00000015030104000028,15030104000029,15030104000044,15030104000045,15030104000046,15030104000047,15030104000071,15030104000072,15030104000073,15030104000074,(Total Count: 108)150301010713,150301040104,150301040105,150301040108,150301040301,150301040304,150301040306,150301040403,150301040404,150301040406,(Total Count: 18)Imperial,Riverside,San Bernardino306662012ToxicitySource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of eight water samples exhibit toxicity when compared to control samples and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   319742012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 20082ToxicityWarm Freshwater Habitat ToxicitySedimentNone40Four samples were collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. None of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008TOXICITY TESTINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 7 Basin Plan.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S eguals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL equals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance.1.Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064The samples were collected at station 715CRIDG1.The samples were collected in April 2008 and May and October 2007. Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and follwed SWAMP protocols.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309452012BifenthrinSource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two water samples and one sediment samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of two water samples exceed the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   463512012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000005BifenthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal22Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin. Ten sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0006 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of bifenthrin does not exceed 0.0006 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.004 ug/L. Mixtures of bifenthrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309452012BifenthrinSource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two water samples and one sediment samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of two water samples exceed the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   354192012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168190BifenthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal101Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.43 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.43 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 2.Quality Assurance Project Plan for Stanislaus National Forest by Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309452012BifenthrinSource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two water samples and one sediment samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Two of two water samples exceed the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   340422012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25904BifenthrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal10The one sample collected for bifenthrin did not exceed the evaluation guideline.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.43 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.43 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007).1.Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 2.Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396.Data were collected at the following station: 723NROTWM (New River Outlet).The sample was collected on 10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309462012ChlorideSource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Twelve of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Twelve of 12 water samples exceed the USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   331062012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 24342ChlorideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal121212 of the 12 samples exceeded the criteria of 230 mg/L.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Chloride criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 230000 ug/L (230 mg/L)(USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006).1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology  Samples were collected at stations 723NRBDRY (New River at Boundary) and 723NROTWM (New River Outlet).Samples were collected on 10/25/2005, 5/1/2006, 5/7/2007, 10/23/2007, 4/21/2008, and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309492012CypermethrinSource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the sediment samples exceed the water quality objective, and twelve of 12 toxicity samples exceed water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of one water sample exceeded the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Three of 10 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.5. Twelve of 13 toxicity samples showed significant toxicity as compared to control.6. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   320242012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 20225ToxicityWarm Freshwater Habitat ToxicitySedimentNone11One sample was collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. One of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided).1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008TOXICITY TESTINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 7 Basin Plan.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S eguals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL equals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance.1.Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064The samples were collected at station 723NROTWM.The sample was collected in October 2008. Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and follwed SWAMP protocols.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309492012CypermethrinSource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the sediment samples exceed the water quality objective, and twelve of 12 toxicity samples exceed water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of one water sample exceeded the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Three of 10 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.5. Twelve of 13 toxicity samples showed significant toxicity as compared to control.6. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   340412012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 25903CypermethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal00The one data point collected for cypermethrin did exceed the guideline when normalized for organic carbon. However, this data point is below the reporting limit for cypermethirn. Data points below the reporting limit cannot be quantified with an acceptable level of certainty and so cannot be used in the assessment.1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin)1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.3 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Maund et al. 2002).1.Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15Data were collected at the following station: 723NROTWM (New River Outlet).The sample was collected on 10/28/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309492012CypermethrinSource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the sediment samples exceed the water quality objective, and twelve of 12 toxicity samples exceed water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of one water sample exceeded the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Three of 10 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.5. Twelve of 13 toxicity samples showed significant toxicity as compared to control.6. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   354722012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 168214CypermethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal103Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 10 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.3 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.3 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cypermethrin from Maund et al. (2002).1.Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-4/21/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309492012CypermethrinSource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the sediment samples exceed the water quality objective, and twelve of 12 toxicity samples exceed water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of one water sample exceeded the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Three of 10 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.5. Twelve of 13 toxicity samples showed significant toxicity as compared to control.6. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   463652012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 92000029CypermethrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal11Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for New River (Imperial County) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total. Eleven sample results were not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective (0.0002 ug/L) and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of cypermethrin does not exceed 0.0002 ug/L and if the 1-h average concentration does not exceed 0.001 ug/L. Mixtures of cypermethrin and other pyrethroids should be considered in an additive manner. (Fojut et al. 2012)1.Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103.Data for this line of evidence for New River (Imperial County) was collected at 2 monitoring sites [ New River Outlet - 723NROTWM, New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY]Data was collected over the time period 10/25/2005-10/28/2008.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309492012CypermethrinSource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the sediment samples exceed the water quality objective, and twelve of 12 toxicity samples exceed water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of one water sample exceeded the UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Three of 10 sediment samples exceeded the median lethal concentration (LC50) used to interpret the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.5. Twelve of 13 toxicity samples showed significant toxicity as compared to control.6. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   320232012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 20223ToxicityWarm Freshwater Habitat ToxicitySedimentNone1211Twelve samples were collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. Eleven of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008TOXICITY TESTINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 7 Basin Plan.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S eguals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL equals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance.1.Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064The samples were collected at stations 723NROTWM and 723NRBDRY.The samples were collected from October 2005 to October 2008. Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and follwed SWAMP protocols.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial224912012NaphthaleneSource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, and received a not supporting due to two of 23 sediment sample exceedances. Two of the sediment samples exceed the water quality objective, and twelve toxicity samples exceed water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, and twelve of 13 sediment toxicity samples showed significant toxicity as compared to control. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   320232012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 20223ToxicityWarm Freshwater Habitat ToxicitySedimentNone1211Twelve samples were collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. Eleven of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008TOXICITY TESTINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 7 Basin Plan.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S eguals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL equals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance.1.Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064The samples were collected at stations 723NROTWM and 723NRBDRY.The samples were collected from October 2005 to October 2008. Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and follwed SWAMP protocols.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial224912012NaphthaleneSource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, and received a not supporting due to two of 23 sediment sample exceedances. Two of the sediment samples exceed the water quality objective, and twelve toxicity samples exceed water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, and twelve of 13 sediment toxicity samples showed significant toxicity as compared to control. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   53302010State Reviewed NaphthaleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentNot Recorded10One sediment quality sample was taken at 1 location along the river, collected on 7/11/1986. This sample did not exceed the PEC Criteria (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) Criteria 561 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (MacDonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected at the following New River location: USGS Station No. 10254970 near the International Boundary in Calexico, Ca.One sample was collected on 7/11/1986. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial224912012NaphthaleneSource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, and received a not supporting due to two of 23 sediment sample exceedances. Two of the sediment samples exceed the water quality objective, and twelve toxicity samples exceed water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, and twelve of 13 sediment toxicity samples showed significant toxicity as compared to control. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   51072010State Reviewed Arsenic | Benzo(a)anthracene | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Chrysene (C1-C4) | Copper | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Lead | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Mercury | Naphthalene | Nickel | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | PyreneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal140Fourteen sediment quality samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005 at 2 locations in the along the New River. Of these total samples, none exceeded the PEC (SWAMP, 2007).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Data for organic and inorganic constituents in water and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. May 2002-May 2005.Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants)Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Consensus Based Sediment Quality Guideline Probable Effects Concentrations (PECs) for the protection of freshwater organisms to toxic effects were used for the following constituents: 33 mg/kg Arsenic, 1050 ug/kg Benz[a]anthrazene, 4.98 mg/kg Cadmium, 111 mg/kg Chromium, 1290 ug/kg Chrysene, 149 mg/kg Copper, 61.8 ug/g Dieldrin, 207 ug/kg Endrin, 2230 ug/kg Fluoranthene, 536 ug/kg Fluorene, 128 mg/kg Lead, 4.99 ug/kg Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), 1.06 mg/kg Mercury, 561 ug/kg Naphthalene, 48.6 mg/kg Nickel, 676 ug/kg PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), 1170 ug/kg Phenanthrene , 1520 ug/kg Pyrene (Macdonald et al, 2000).1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Samples were collected from the following New River locations: at the International Boundary, and near the outlet to the Salton Sea near Calipatria, CA.Fourteen sediment samples were collected. Sediment samples were collected and analyzed biannually from 5/2002 through 5/2005, in May and October. The sampling and analysis portions of this study were conducted in accordance with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) (Puckett, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial224912012NaphthaleneSource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, and received a not supporting due to two of 23 sediment sample exceedances. Two of the sediment samples exceed the water quality objective, and twelve toxicity samples exceed water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, and twelve of 13 sediment toxicity samples showed significant toxicity as compared to control. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   320242012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 20225ToxicityWarm Freshwater Habitat ToxicitySedimentNone11One sample was collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. One of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided).1.Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008TOXICITY TESTINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 7 Basin Plan.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S eguals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL equals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance.1.Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064The samples were collected at station 723NROTWM.The sample was collected in October 2008. Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and follwed SWAMP protocols.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial224912012NaphthaleneSource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All sediment LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, and received a not supporting due to two of 23 sediment sample exceedances. Two of the sediment samples exceed the water quality objective, and twelve toxicity samples exceed water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 23 sediment samples exceeded the sediment quality guideline used to interpret the water quality objective, and twelve of 13 sediment toxicity samples showed significant toxicity as compared to control. These exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   325652012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21868NaphthaleneWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-SedimentSedimentTotal82Two of 8 samples collected for naphthalene (Sum of c0-c4) exceeded the evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Colorado River Basin Plan).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The Probable Effect Concentration for naphthalene in freshwater sediments is 561 ug/kg.1.Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31Data were collected at the following station: New River at Boundary - 723NRBDRY, New River Outlet - 723NROTWM.The samples were collected on 10/25/2005 - 4/21/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionNew River (Imperial County)CAR7231000019990205102948River & Stream 10723.100000,10728.00000018100204001603,18100204001719,18100204001969,18100204002106,18100204002607,18100204002656,18100204003372,18100204003470181002040902,181002040904,181002040905Imperial309562012Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)Out-of-state sourceList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Seven of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Seven of 11 water samples exceed the USEPA Temperature and pH-Dependent values of the CCC (Chronic Criterion) and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   345892012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 26208Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal1177 of the 11 samples exceed the water USEPA Temperature and pH-Dependent values of the CCC (Chronic Criterion) for Fish Early Life Stages Present for ammonia.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGWater Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin Region (RWQCB 2006): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There is no water quality objective for ammonia in the Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin. Instead, the USEPA criteria for ammonia was used as Temperature and pH-Dependent Values of the CCC (Chronic Criterion)for Fish Early Life Stages Present.1.1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia  Samples collected at 723NRBDRY (New River at Boundary and 723NROTWM (New River Outlet).Samples collected between 10/25/2005 and 10/28/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionPalo Verde Outfall Drain and LagoonCAR7154000019990205131951River & Stream 10715.40000015030104001480,15030104003526,15030104003647,15030104003651,15030104003653,15030104003656,15030104003668,15030104003679,15030104004394,15030104004452,(Total Count: 15)150301040804,150301041107Imperial,Riverside310082012ChlorideSource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Nine of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Nine of 12 water samples exceed theUSEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   331072012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 24343ChlorideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal1288 of the 12 samples exceeded the criteria of 230 mg/L.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Chloride criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 230000 ug/L (230 mg/L)(USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006).1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology  Samples were collected at stations 715CPVLG1 (Palo Verde Lagoon (LG1)) and 715CPVOD2 (Palo Verde Outfall Drain (PVOD2)).Samples were collected on 10/25/2005, 5/2/2006, 5/8/2007, 10/23/2007, 4/22/2008, and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside311682012ChlorideSource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Twenty of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Twenty of 20 water sample exceeded the USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   331082012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 24344ChlorideWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal202020 of the 20 samples exceeded the criteria of 230 mg/L.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGThe Chloride criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 230000 ug/L (230 mg/L)(USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006).1.National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology  Samples were collected at stations 728SSDNW2 (Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)), 728SSGS02 (Salton Sea USGS2), 728SSGS07 (Salton Sea USGS7), and 728SSGS09 (Salton Sea USGS9).Samples were collected on 10/26/2005, 5/3/2006, 5/9/2007, 10/24/2007, 4/22/2008, and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008).1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside223652012Low Dissolved OxygenSource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, which results in six of 25 exceedances. Although individual LOE contain insufficient information due to insufficient total sample size, the combined total exceedance exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Thus both of LOEs received a not supporting. Six of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 25 water samples exceed the Basin Plan Objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   52362010State Reviewed Low Dissolved OxygenWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved53Five water quality measurements were taken at 5 locations in the Salton Sea, collected between 7/20/1998 and 7/22/1998. Out of these total measurements, 3 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. The exceedences were found in measurements collected from 7/20/1998 through 7/21/1998 at 3 locations in the sea, near center of South Basin, between South Basin and New and Alamo River Deltas, and in San Felipe Creek Delta (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005.Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring dataBasin Plan: The dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below the following minimum levels at any time: Water designated WARM 5 mg/l (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Measurements were collected at the following Salton Sea locations: USGS Station No. 332908116011501 between North Basin and Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel, USGS Station No. 332637115512001 in Salt Creek Delta, USGS Station No. 331400115450001 near center of South Basin, USGS Station No. 331215115410001 between South Basin and New and Alamo River Deltas, and USGS Station No. 331023115473701 in San Felipe Creek Delta.Five measurements were collected in 7/98. The exceedences were found in measurements collected from 7/20/1998 through 7/21/1998. Assume samplers used standard USGS methods for sample collection (Wilde, variously dated). Assume analysts used standard analytical methods and quality assurance as described in (USGS, 2007).1.Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in water and sediment samples collected from waterbodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7, collected and reported on the National Water Information System (NWIS) Water Quality database. 1961-2005. 2.Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. In United States Geological Survey (USGS). Variously dated. National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside223652012Low Dissolved OxygenSource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. All two LOEs are combined for a use rating determination, which results in six of 25 exceedances. Although individual LOE contain insufficient information due to insufficient total sample size, the combined total exceedance exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Thus both of LOEs received a not supporting. Six of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Six of 25 water samples exceed the Basin Plan Objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   328302012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 21886Oxygen, DissolvedWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterDissolved203Three of the fourteen samples exceeded the water quality objective for dissolved oxygen.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGFrom the Colorado River Water Quality Control Plan 'The dissolved Oxygen concentration shall not be reduced below the following minimum levels at any time: for waters designated as WARM-5.0 mg/L.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006  Data were collected at the following stations: Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2) - 728SSDNW2, Salton Sea USGS2 - 728SSGS02, Salton Sea USGS7 - 728SSGS07, Salton Sea USGS9 - 728SSGS09, .The samples were collected on 10/26/2005 - 10/29/2008. The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside311772012Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)Source UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of 20 water samples exceeded the USEPA Temperature and pH-Dependent values of the chronic criterion and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   345872012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 26206Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-WaterWaterTotal2033 of the 20 samples exceed the water USEPA Temperature and pH-Dependent values of the CCC (Chronic Criterion) for Fish Early Life Stages Present for ammonia. 3 of the 20 data samples are reported as Non-Detect (ND). These 3 ND values are less than or equal to the water quality standard, the value will be considered as meeting the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline.1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORINGWater Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin Region (RWQCB 2006): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. There is no water quality objective for ammonia in the Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin. Instead, the USEPA criteria for ammonia was used as Temperature and pH-Dependent Values of the CCC (Chronic Criterion)for Fish Early Life Stages Present.1.1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia  Samples collected at 728SSDNW2 [Salton Sea Drain NW2 (Torrez Martinez 2)], 728SSGS02 (Salton Sea USGS2), 728SSGS07 (Salton Sea USGS7), and 728SSGS09 (Salton Sea USGS9).Samples collected between 10/26/2005 and 10/29/2008. SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside311792012ToxicitySource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Seven water samples and nine sediment samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seven of 12 water samples and nine of 10 sediment samples exhibit toxicity when compared to control samples and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   320212012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 20087ToxicityWarm Freshwater Habitat ToxicityWaterNone116Eleven samples were collected to evaluate water toxicity. Six of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival and biomass of Atherinops affinis. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008TOXICITY TESTINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 7 Basin Plan.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S eguals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL eequals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance.1.Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013The samples were collected at stations 728SSGS02, 728SSGS09, 728SSGS07, and 728SSDNW2.The samples were collected from October 2005 to 2007. Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and follwed SWAMP protocols.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionSalton SeaCAS7280000019990205133504Saline Lake 10719.470000,10721.000000,10722.200000,10723.100000,10725.000000,10728.00000018100204000002181002030803,181002040707,181002040905,181002041002,181002041003,181002041101,181002041102,181002041109,181002041202,181002041203,(Total Count: 17)Imperial,Riverside311792012ToxicitySource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNNThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Seven water samples and nine sediment samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seven of 12 water samples and nine of 10 sediment samples exhibit toxicity when compared to control samples and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   320202012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 20086ToxicityWarm Freshwater Habitat ToxicitySedimentNone109Ten samples were collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. Nine of the samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided).1.RWB7 Trend Monitoring CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008TOXICITY TESTINGAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Region 7 Basin Plan.1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted using the significant effect code: S eguals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL equals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance.1.Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064The samples were collected at stations 728SSGS02, 728SSGS07, 728SSGS09, and 728SSDNW2.The samples were collected from October 2005 to April 2008. Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and follwed SWAMP protocols.1.Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial211332012DieldrinSource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Three of three fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   462992012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671758DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet11Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial211332012DieldrinSource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Three of three fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   463012012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671760DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial211332012DieldrinSource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Three of three fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   460952012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671551DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial211332012DieldrinSource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Three of three fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   460942012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671550DieldrinCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial211332012DieldrinSource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Three of three fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   55992010State Reviewed DieldrinWarm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal20Two fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the lake. The samples were generally collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. Of these two samples, neither exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 100 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the interior of Wiest Lake.Two largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial211332012DieldrinSource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Three of three fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   462832012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671549DieldrinCommercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet22Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Composites collected at the same time on the same day for the same species were averaged in accordance with the listing policy.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for dieldrin in fish tissue is 0.32 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial211332012DieldrinSource UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.Seven lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of sample exceeds the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.3. Three of three fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA fish tissue guideline and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   463002012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671759DieldrinCold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009).1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum Dieldrin concentration of 100 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial213042012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5444 is replaced by the LOE No. 46909, which is assessed based on the new evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5444 is not used in the final use rating. LOE No. 46909 is combined with LOE Nos. 46319 and 46227 for a use rating determination. Three of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of four fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   463202012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671779PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Cold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total PCB concentration of 500 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial213042012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5444 is replaced by the LOE No. 46909, which is assessed based on the new evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5444 is not used in the final use rating. LOE No. 46909 is combined with LOE Nos. 46319 and 46227 for a use rating determination. Three of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of four fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   463192012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671778PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet11Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for polychlorinated biphenyls in fish tissue is 2.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial213042012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5444 is replaced by the LOE No. 46909, which is assessed based on the new evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5444 is not used in the final use rating. LOE No. 46909 is combined with LOE Nos. 46319 and 46227 for a use rating determination. Three of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of four fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   462402012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671571PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Composites were averaged for species collected at the same time and location. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total PCB concentration of 500 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial213042012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5444 is replaced by the LOE No. 46909, which is assessed based on the new evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5444 is not used in the final use rating. LOE No. 46909 is combined with LOE Nos. 46319 and 46227 for a use rating determination. Three of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of four fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   462392012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671570PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Cold Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet20Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Composites were averaged for species collected at the same time and location. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total PCB concentration of 500 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial213042012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5444 is replaced by the LOE No. 46909, which is assessed based on the new evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5444 is not used in the final use rating. LOE No. 46909 is combined with LOE Nos. 46319 and 46227 for a use rating determination. Three of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of four fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   469092012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed) PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal11Two fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in lake. One fish fillet sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentrations. The 1 fish fillet sample that was acceptable was generally collected in 12/1999. Of these total samples, 1 sample collected at 1 location exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. The exceedance was found in a largemouth bass fillet composite sample collected on 12/06/1999 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for polychlorinated biphenyls in fish tissue is 2.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the interior of Wiest Lake.Two largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. The exceedance was found in the sample collected on 12/06/1999. Field procedures described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. Used CDFG's Laboratory Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial213042012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5444 is replaced by the LOE No. 46909, which is assessed based on the new evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5444 is not used in the final use rating. LOE No. 46909 is combined with LOE Nos. 46319 and 46227 for a use rating determination. Three of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of four fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   56462010State Reviewed PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal20Two fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in the lake. The samples were generally collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. Of these two samples, neither exceeded the NAS tissue guideline (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science (NAS) tissue guideline of 500 ug/kg for the protection of aquatic life uses (NAS, 1973).1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySamples were collected from the interior of Wiest Lake.Two largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. The field procedures are described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. CDFG's Laboratory applies Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial213042012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5444 is replaced by the LOE No. 46909, which is assessed based on the new evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5444 is not used in the final use rating. LOE No. 46909 is combined with LOE Nos. 46319 and 46227 for a use rating determination. Three of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of four fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   54442010State Reviewed PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueTotal11Two fish fillet samples were taken at 1 location in lake. One fish fillet sample result could not be used in this assessment because the sample results were non-detect and the detection limit was above the criteria concentrations. The 1 fish fillet sample that was acceptable was generally collected in 12/1999. Of these total samples, 1 sample collected at 1 location exceeded the OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal. The exceedance was found in a largemouth bass fillet composite sample collected on 12/06/1999 (TSMP, 2007).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program (TSMP) Data for organic and inorganic chemicals in fish and sediment samples collected from water bodies located in the Colorado River Basin-Region 7. 1978-2000. State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA.Fish tissue analysisBasin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (CRBRWQCB, 2006).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Fish Contaminant Goal of 3.6 ug/kg to protect human health when consuming fish (OEHHA, 2008).1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneSamples were collected from the interior of Wiest Lake.Two largemouth bass fillet composite samples were collected in 10/1989 and 12/1999. The exceedance was found in the sample collected on 12/06/1999. Field procedures described in TSMP Data Reports and associated Appendices. Used CDFG's Laboratory Quality Assurance Program Plan procedures for laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control, as described in Rasmussen (1993).1.Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1991 Data Report. 93-1WQ. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Division of Water Quality. Sacramento, CA.
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial213042012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5444 is replaced by the LOE No. 46909, which is assessed based on the new evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5444 is not used in the final use rating. LOE No. 46909 is combined with LOE Nos. 46319 and 46227 for a use rating determination. Three of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of four fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   463292012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671780PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Warm Freshwater Habitat Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet10Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. One composite (3 fish per composite) was generated from one species: channel catfish. Details of the compositing protocol can be found in the March 2009 report entitled: "Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Study" (SWAMP, 2009). Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs: Technical Report on Year One of a Two-Year Screening Survey. A Report of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA 2.Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008 3.Statewide Lakes Sportfish Contamination Study 2007 2008 4.Contaminants in Fish from California Lakes and Reservoirs, 2007-2008: Summary Report on a Two-Year Screening SurveyFish tissue analysisNo individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in hazardous chemical concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006National Academy of Science guidelines (NAS 1972) establish a maximum total PCB concentration of 500 ug/Kg (wet weight) in tissue samples for protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances.1.National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake_BOG - 723PWT019]. Samples were collected from 1 location. Individual sample locations consisted of an area within a given waterbody from which fish tissue samples were collected. The number of sample locations per waterbody was based on the overall size of the waterbody (SWAMP, 2010). Specifics of individual sampling locations can be found in the supplemental report entitled "Cruise Report for the Surface Waters Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Bioaccumulation Screening Study in California Lakes and Reservoirs, Sampling Dates: June 2007- March 2008" (SWAMP, 2008).Data was collected on a single day 11/1/2007.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.Samples were collected, processed, and analyzed in accordance with the methods described in Quality Assurance Project Plan "Screening Study of Bioaccumulation in California Lakes and Reservoirs." (SWAMP, 2002).1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
Regional Board 7 - Colorado River Basin RegionWiest LakeCAL7231000020000127135508Lake & Reservoir 10723.10000018100204001201181002040705Imperial213042012PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Source UnknownList on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)Revised   2025   YNNYThis pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Nine lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. LOE No. 5444 is replaced by the LOE No. 46909, which is assessed based on the new evaluation guideline. Thus, LOE No. 5444 is not used in the final use rating. LOE No. 46909 is combined with LOE Nos. 46319 and 46227 for a use rating determination. Three of samples exceed the water quality objective.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of four fish tissue samples exceeded the modified OEHHA and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.   462272012Region LOE Data Assessment Complete (Not State Reviewed)BabyWQA LOEID : 91671569PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms Pollutant-TissueTissueFish fillet21Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Wiest Lake to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 2 samples exceed the criterion for PCB, Total. Six composites were generated from two species: black crappie and channel catfish. Composites were averaged for species collected at the same time and location. Composites comprised of 2-3 fish for channel catfish and 1 fish for Tilapia spp. and flathead catfish.Composites comprised of 3 - 4 fish for black crappie and 2 -3 fish for channel catfish. Total PCB was assessed for as follows: PCB aroclors and congeners were summed separately and the sum that yielded the highest value was used for the assessment.1.RWB7 Fish Tissue Study 2004Fish tissue analysisAll waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin).1.Water Quality Control Plan Colorado River Basin, with amendments adopted through June 2006The modified OEHHA Fish Contaminant Goal for polychlorinated biphenyls in fish tissue is 2.6 ppb. This screening level assumes an average body weight of 70 kg and a consumption rate of 32 g/day for a 30 year exposure over a 70-year lifetime. This constituent is a carcinogen therefore the risk level is set to one in a million. A cooking reduction factor of 1 is applied for skin-off fillets.1.Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and ToxapheneData for this line of evidence for Wiest Lake was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Wiest Lake - 723WIESLK]Data was collected on a single day 11/6/2004.Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.The SWAMP QAPP (2002) was followed.1.Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)